Tax cuts, NOT Obama’s New New Deal

Obama, in love with government like so many of his supporters, thinks that the only thing that can lift our ailing economy is massive government spending.  It failed in Hoover’s/FDR’s Great Depression and it will fail now.

I read recently that the federal government takes in $160 billion per month in taxes.  The new President is suggesting a “stimulus package” that could go over $1 trilllion.  I would argue that we should have a temporary break in federal income/payroll taxes, we could all pay no taxes for 5 months and still spend slightly less than what Obama wants to spend.  The economy would go crazy!  Go look at your paystub right now and add back in the federal taxes taken out.  What could you do with that money?  I remind you that it is your money.

And didn’t candidate Obama talk of improving the economy from the bottom up?  Let the people keep their money and let that happen, Barry!

Stephen Moore, of the WSJ, took it even further when speaking at the Metropolitan Club recently:

‘We need alternatives to the Obama stimulus plan,” said Moore. “We need to call for a one-year suspension of the income tax. If we want to see this economy recover, bring tax rates down to zero. We will get jobs.”

I am reading Amity Shlaes’ The Forgotten Man right now so perhaps I am over-cognizant of how these same people (with a fetish for government) screwed it up last time.

3 responses to “Tax cuts, NOT Obama’s New New Deal

  1. Sweden and Denmark have always had higher taxes then we do but you don’t see a wink of them in this present crisis …

  2. I guess that I would have a couple of responses to that, Gilmour.

    First, I did not suggest (nor did the linked article) that our current economic woes are the result of the current withholding tax. What I did suggest is that letting people keep their own money for a few months would be good for regular people, the people on “main street” that the politicans pretend to care about. I also suggested that this approach would end up better for the economy, while also being cheaper, than the proposed New Deal like spending by the incoming administration.

    Second, if those two countries had PC-disordered politicians who used quasi-government organizations to legitimize securities that otherwise would have not become legitimate investments then they would indeed be in the same boat.

    I also want to respond to your point about Sweden and Denmark. In my personal experience it seems quite common to hear someone compare some public policy in the US to the policy in a scandinavian country, with the point typically being an implicit or explicit statement that they are doing it right and we are not and “look at how wonderful things are over there”.

    My response to most of these arguments, and my response to you as well, is that in a fundamental way these comparisons are apples and oranges, with the key and obvious difference being one of scale. I submit that it is completely devoid of value to attempt to equate the results of differing tax structures or the degree of collectivism of little boutique countries like Sweden (pop. 9 million) and Denmark (pop. 5.5 million) with the potential results of similar policies in a large country like the US (pop 300+ million).

  3. I never compared Sweden or Denmark with our economy … you presumed it out all by yourself. What I wrote was meant to debunk your claims, so repeating once more, contrary to what you swear-and-cross-your-heart, Denmark and Sweden have always had higher taxes and yet they’re not living in a failed dream-world economy …

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s