DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Five things we learned from Tuesday's GOP debate

**Soolfelpecelf** · 10-21-2011, 08:30 PM

So, you're thinking then that this 9% sales tax will cause people to buy less stuff ( a reasonable thought)

How then, does that help the economy grow?

The economy grows or shrinks whether the government likes it or not. I never expect anything the government does to have a positive influence towards that. I simply factor in, if you have to have a tax, one that gets people thinking hard about what they're spending their money towards on a regular basis is not necessarily a bad thing.

By "growing the economy" I presume you're referring to our current recession, which has more than a little to do with the growing pains of a globalized market. I think the government is wasting its energy in just about any efforts it makes to affect that. Seems to be the only ones who benefit are the abhorrid wealthy through cronyism. The only thing our government can realistically do to influence our own state of wealth effectively is by levelling the playing field for internal/external participants. If the government creates an environment where our own job producers can realistically compete with foreign competitors we provide the opportunity this country needs to move in a positive direction. After that the rest is on us to step up to the plate, and I do love a challenge as it brings out the best in us.

For the moment we operate at the mentality that we must remain at a "revenue neutral" status which is a fair assessment. You can't cut revenues without eliminating unnecessary forms of spending or debt goes up, that's not a hard concept. Personally if I were to influence tax codes the increments would not be so drastic, as I think that has a better chance of getting us where we need to be in the long run. But if we're going to change it in any fashion towards any specific direction it doesn't hurt to do it in a way that discourages irresponsible spending habits in my mind. We come to this dilemma where our approach to resolving our situation has to be resolved holistically yet we cannot just change it all at once. America wants immediate satisfaction when the proposed solution would probably make the situation even worse if we force it too quickly. My suggestion is to parse it out in steps with a final strategic intention in mind, and evaluate the success or failure of the individual steps not solely on what ails us today but factor in whether they might be necessary side effects for getting us to our long term solution.

10-21-2011, 08:30 PM	#35
Soolfelpecelf Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 509 Senior Member	So, you're thinking then that this 9% sales tax will cause people to buy less stuff ( a reasonable thought) How then, does that help the economy grow? The economy grows or shrinks whether the government likes it or not. I never expect anything the government does to have a positive influence towards that. I simply factor in, if you have to have a tax, one that gets people thinking hard about what they're spending their money towards on a regular basis is not necessarily a bad thing. By "growing the economy" I presume you're referring to our current recession, which has more than a little to do with the growing pains of a globalized market. I think the government is wasting its energy in just about any efforts it makes to affect that. Seems to be the only ones who benefit are the abhorrid wealthy through cronyism. The only thing our government can realistically do to influence our own state of wealth effectively is by levelling the playing field for internal/external participants. If the government creates an environment where our own job producers can realistically compete with foreign competitors we provide the opportunity this country needs to move in a positive direction. After that the rest is on us to step up to the plate, and I do love a challenge as it brings out the best in us. For the moment we operate at the mentality that we must remain at a "revenue neutral" status which is a fair assessment. You can't cut revenues without eliminating unnecessary forms of spending or debt goes up, that's not a hard concept. Personally if I were to influence tax codes the increments would not be so drastic, as I think that has a better chance of getting us where we need to be in the long run. But if we're going to change it in any fashion towards any specific direction it doesn't hurt to do it in a way that discourages irresponsible spending habits in my mind. We come to this dilemma where our approach to resolving our situation has to be resolved holistically yet we cannot just change it all at once. America wants immediate satisfaction when the proposed solution would probably make the situation even worse if we force it too quickly. My suggestion is to parse it out in steps with a final strategic intention in mind, and evaluate the success or failure of the individual steps not solely on what ails us today but factor in whether they might be necessary side effects for getting us to our long term solution.
	Quote