The Stimulus Seems to have failed

Travis said:
California has a high speed rail system just waiting to be built that would generate 160,000 jobs in the short term and nearly 600,000 after full system build out.
Click to expand...

Just what CA needs, another light rail boondoggle!

Of course it will be great for CEO Roelof van Ark who will be starting out with a $375,000 salary.

Taxpayers don't need another 600,000 jobs that require ongoing tax subsidies just to keep rolling. There is nothing but wishful thinking to indicate that this project will be able to generate enough ridership to start to cover the costs of operation.
 
So Taxpayers don't need jobs?
Click to expand...

Ok here goes. The jobs are being funded by tax payers in the first place, therefore you get no more tax revenue than you are spending. In order to keep the system alive, you need people who aren't being paid by the government to pay taxes.

How would our government run if there were no taxes?
Click to expand...

As I am not actually advocating doing away with all taxes, this is about as silly a question as it gets. Do yourself a favor and google reductio ad absurdum.
 
So how low should taxes go? Should we keep give the wealthy and corporations tax breaks? Reductio ad absurdum isn't a fallacy at all times. In this case, I'm showing that it's an absurd position that the GOP and Conservatives keep making, that cutting taxes will solve all problems. They don't say much else. You make an ad absurdum counter-argument, but the problem is the the DNC actually has plans on how to spend, where to spend and where to cut budgets. They don't have the "raise taxes and all problems will be solved" attitude.

Conservatives answer to virtually every question is "cut taxes."
 
Last edited:
So how low should taxes go?
Click to expand...

That's a different question, the one you should have asked in the first place. Since economics is not really like Hari Seldon's Psycho History (no matter what Paul Krugman thinks) giving a precise number would be useless. In general though, there has to be a sweet spot between a tax rate so high that it discourages wealth creation and a tax so low that the government is not able to meet its obligations. I'm also guessing that the sweet spot changes with economic conditions. I think the tax rate should be in any case predictable.
 
Chris L said:
That's a different question, the one you should have asked in the first place. Since economics is not really like Hari Seldon's Psycho History (no matter what Paul Krugman thinks) giving a precise number would be useless. In general though, there has to be a sweet spot between a tax rate so high that it discourages wealth creation and a tax so low that the government is not able to meet its obligations. I'm also guessing that the sweet spot changes with economic conditions. I think the tax rate should be in any case predictable.
Click to expand...

So, in short: You have no idea, taxes should just be "lower".
 
jimbob said:
The laws of economics are subject to psychology and can change. The laws of physics are not.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about the first sentence? Has "buy low, sell high" ever turned into "buy high, sell low"? A cite would be nice. Has oversupply of a good ever led inexorably to higher prices and higher profitability with all other things remaining equal? Cite?
 
BobTheDonkey said:
So, in short: You have no idea, taxes should just be "lower".
Click to expand...

Taxes have less to do with it than the US trade deficit, undermined consumer confidence, oversupply of cheap foreign goods, and a reluctance to prod an increase in aggregate demand through ordinary means.

Cutting all taxes by 2/3rds would be a roundabout way of trying direct stimulus. It just takes longer to achieve similar results. The reason is that you take the largest prospective consumer out of the equation.
 
Hindmost said:
Unfortunately, these are most likely the same economists that didn't see the problem to begin with. I really don't trust their track record as there is no real reason to believe they know what they are talking about.
Click to expand...
So you'd trust a former community organizer instead. Got it.
 
So, in short: You have no idea, taxes should just be "lower".
Click to expand...

So, in short, I am not intellectually arrogant enough to give a figure. Perhaps you have special knowledge in that area?
 
Chris L said:
How much of the stimulus was geared to this program?
Click to expand...

$2.8 billion. But there is talk of an infrastructure funding bank that may steer $50 billion to high speed rail programs all over the country.

YoPopa said:
Just what CA needs, another light rail boondoggle!

Of course it will be great for CEO Roelof van Ark who will be starting out with a $375,000 salary.

Taxpayers don't need another 600,000 jobs that require ongoing tax subsidies just to keep rolling. There is nothing but wishful thinking to indicate that this project will be able to generate enough ridership to start to cover the costs of operation.
Click to expand...

You sir do not know what you are talking about. Every high speed rail system in the world covers it's operating costs and do not require subsidies. California's systems projected ridership is right in line with international experience and, in my opinion, is only faulted by being too conservative in its estimates.

Besides if they don't build it they will have to spend $80 billion+ to widen highways to move the same number of people and highways absolutely do not cover their costs and do require ongoing subsidies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom