can someone explain to me why we are not getting a payroll tax cut, which
seems to me would boost the demand side of the economy (do we need any more
help with the supply side?) and would help the working poor (i.e. ME) instead
of the plan being hawked as a stimulus that delivers like 1/10 of 1% up
front, most to people who are wealthy enough that their spending and
investment habits probably won't change at all?
i know in THEORY huge infusions into capital spending are supposed to be
encouraged by this (bottom-loaded) bush tax cut, that those infusions will
somehow trickle on down to the rest of us in the form of jobs and all, but
can somebody point me to a place in history where capital spending (outside
of war) actually changed the spending abilities of the lower/middle class?
i understand during reagan's era a lot of consumer spending occurred, but
wasn't that due more to social changes, like the emergence of two-income
families and credit card spending, than to any real help from increased
it seems to me that an economy based on a stock-valued infrastructure will
never be stable, that jobs will always be sacrificed to keep profitablitity
for the shareholders. so while i understand the necessity of keeping
business profitable, it seems to me that if the demand side were taken care
of, in the form of putting more spending money in the hands of working people
via a payroll tax cut, the supply side would take care of itself. providing
inflation is kept in check.
took macro econ only,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:14:18 PDT