z*********n
发帖数: 94654 | |
B****a
发帖数: 1932 | 2 現在是多少 ？
【在 z*********n 的大作中提到】
: 800多个比令的stimulus plan
|
z*********n
发帖数: 94654 | 3 不变外加降低2％的social security tax，外加一些deduction需要砖家解读
vs
布什当年的“临时”减税过期，大家的税都rollback到克林顿年代
【在 B****a 的大作中提到】
: 現在是多少 ？
|
T******e
发帖数: 18290 | |
b*****n
发帖数: 17570 | 5 百姓手里的绝对数值增加了，相对购买力下降了
【在 z*********n 的大作中提到】
: 800多个比令的stimulus plan
|
z*********n
发帖数: 94654 | 6 初步估算800多个比令啊
【在 T******e 的大作中提到】
: 会带来多少赤字？
|
t*****9
发帖数: 10416 | 7 占人口1%的富人 估计拿走 700多个比令啊 。。。。。。。穷人反正不缴税
【在 z*********n 的大作中提到】
: 初步估算800多个比令啊
|
z*********n
发帖数: 94654 | 8 而且，有一个民党议员说的其实是大实话
压根就没有所谓的“临时”减税
临时到最后必然是长期的
这个估算800比令只是两年的cost，两年后多半还得延，谁也不愿意当加税政治家，等
于政治自杀
等着看吧
【在 t*****9 的大作中提到】
: 占人口1%的富人 估计拿走 700多个比令啊 。。。。。。。穷人反正不缴税
|
e****a
发帖数: 2239 | 9 就是印钱吗，反正你不印别人印，不印白不印
【在 z*********n 的大作中提到】
: 800多个比令的stimulus plan
|
t*****9
发帖数: 10416 | 10 印得再多，p民反正没份，SOB too rich to fail .......lol
【在 e****a 的大作中提到】
: 就是印钱吗，反正你不印别人印，不印白不印
|
|
|
e****a
发帖数: 2239 | 11 80%/20% rule
【在 t*****9 的大作中提到】
: 印得再多，p民反正没份，SOB too rich to fail .......lol
|
t*****9
发帖数: 10416 | 12 in this case, 除了unemployment benefit 57B, 其他都是GOP的，less than 10%
【在 e****a 的大作中提到】
: 80%/20% rule
|
v****e
发帖数: 19471 | 13 good. $800b not collected will be $800b not spent on feeding those lazy ass
parasites and their many fat kids.
【在 z*********n 的大作中提到】
: 800多个比令的stimulus plan
|
v****e
发帖数: 19471 | 14 deficit is not a problem at all, at least not for our generation.
【在 T******e 的大作中提到】
: 会带来多少赤字？
|
v****e
发帖数: 19471 | 15 Even if this tax bill saves me only a couple hundred dollar, I'm still all f
or it. tax cutting is the only proven effective way to help accelerate econo
mic recovery and improve unemployment situation. plus this government has gr
own too big the last two years and really needs to shrink.
【在 t*****9 的大作中提到】
: 占人口1%的富人 估计拿走 700多个比令啊 。。。。。。。穷人反正不缴税
|
T******e
发帖数: 18290 | 16 政府膨胀跟减税不矛盾啊，在布什年代是双管齐下的，继续发债呗，反正赤字不是问题？
f
econo
gr
【在 v****e 的大作中提到】
: Even if this tax bill saves me only a couple hundred dollar, I'm still all f
: or it. tax cutting is the only proven effective way to help accelerate econo
: mic recovery and improve unemployment situation. plus this government has gr
: own too big the last two years and really needs to shrink.
|
z*********n
发帖数: 94654 | 17 其实当年里根减税导致经济衰退，他第二任加税反而经济腾飞了
减税经济腾飞历史上成功的不太多
当然这东西太复杂，越是“砖家”说的越不准
f
econo
gr
【在 v****e 的大作中提到】
: Even if this tax bill saves me only a couple hundred dollar, I'm still all f
: or it. tax cutting is the only proven effective way to help accelerate econo
: mic recovery and improve unemployment situation. plus this government has gr
: own too big the last two years and really needs to shrink.
|
T******e
发帖数: 18290 | 18 “导致”这个词意味着因果关系，这个词很强。其实也许只是里根减税，同时正好碰上
经济衰退，谁知道
【在 z*********n 的大作中提到】
: 其实当年里根减税导致经济衰退，他第二任加税反而经济腾飞了
: 减税经济腾飞历史上成功的不太多
: 当然这东西太复杂，越是“砖家”说的越不准
:
: f
: econo
: gr
|
z*********n
发帖数: 94654 | 19 嗯，我用词不当
【在 T******e 的大作中提到】
: “导致”这个词意味着因果关系，这个词很强。其实也许只是里根减税，同时正好碰上
: 经济衰退，谁知道
|
v****e
发帖数: 19471 | 20 不要把内政和外交混为一谈。政府在国内事务上的扩张从来都是坏的。外交和战争上的
事情复杂一些，不好一概而论。虽然这两场仗，尤其是伊拉克，师出无名，但是是符合
美国的国家利益的。
题？
【在 T******e 的大作中提到】
: 政府膨胀跟减税不矛盾啊，在布什年代是双管齐下的，继续发债呗，反正赤字不是问题？
:
: f
: econo
: gr
|
|
|
s*******g
发帖数: 1607 | 21 tax cutting puts more dollars in consumers' pockets but that does not
necessarily stimulate spending, numerous studies have shown that one time
rebate check a few years ago was very ineffective, with consumers choosing
to save about 70-80% of that amount instead of spending it
also the government isn't going to shrink when there's less tax, they are
just going to borrow more, the interest rate of the loans they are taking
out are definitely higher than what me or you can get in a bank, so if you
follow the utilitarian way of thinking, it's actually better to give to the
government the money so they don't borrow
plus, this so called 'stimulus' mostly protects the wealthy with household
income of $250k, and i'm far far from that lol
f
econo
gr
【在 v****e 的大作中提到】
: Even if this tax bill saves me only a couple hundred dollar, I'm still all f
: or it. tax cutting is the only proven effective way to help accelerate econo
: mic recovery and improve unemployment situation. plus this government has gr
: own too big the last two years and really needs to shrink.
|
v****e
发帖数: 19471 | 22 I always like to take a sum-of-parts approach when looking at such things. i
n this case, the several things mentioned are:
(1) tax cuts, which puts more disposable income in the hands of the consumer
, so they have a CHOICE whether they'll spend or save that money. you have a
point that most of the 800B will end up with the wealthy.
(2) deleveraging and higher savings rates. this is as much a both a math pro
blem as it is a psychological/confidence problem.
(3) shall we let the government to use our money on behalf of us only becaus
e its borrowing cost is higher?
we can debate each of these questions all day long. but here are my basic ar
guments:
(1) a little more to spend is always better than nothing. the wealthy will h
ave to put their money somewhere, too. even if the money ends up invested in
those funds of funds, that money eventually will be invested and drive expa
nsion. I'd like to see that happen earlier than later.
(2) we're in a death circle where the consumer is not spending because he
lacks
confidence in job and the job market is not improving because companies ar
e seeing a cautious consuer. dead circle needs strong forces to break. one o
f the best options is to put more cash in the hands of the consumer, as
nothing provides a greater sense of security than cash.
(3)I don't trust the government. the only thing the US government is good at
is waging wars overseas to solidify its global dominance. in everthing else
it is way less efficient than the private sector.
the
【在 s*******g 的大作中提到】
: tax cutting puts more dollars in consumers' pockets but that does not
: necessarily stimulate spending, numerous studies have shown that one time
: rebate check a few years ago was very ineffective, with consumers choosing
: to save about 70-80% of that amount instead of spending it
: also the government isn't going to shrink when there's less tax, they are
: just going to borrow more, the interest rate of the loans they are taking
: out are definitely higher than what me or you can get in a bank, so if you
: follow the utilitarian way of thinking, it's actually better to give to the
: government the money so they don't borrow
: plus, this so called 'stimulus' mostly protects the wealthy with household
|
s*******g
发帖数: 1607 | 23 you are arguing that your average joe blow can invest the money (thru
savings or spending) better than the government, that might be true but you
also have to take into consideration 2 factors that result from the loans
the government will surely take out to fund itself
1. interest rate, for examples if the net gain for giving it to the average
american is 3%, then uncle sam borrows money from hu core at a rate of 4%,
then that's a net loss, regardless of what the government does with the
money.
2. currency devaluation, that $800B in the tax breaks will result in almost
the same amount in loans over the next 2 years, and after 2 years that
amount will be worth a lot less than it is worth now thanks to the outflow
of dollars (unless the lenders invests all of that back in the US)
i
consumer
a
pro
becaus
ar
【在 v****e 的大作中提到】
: I always like to take a sum-of-parts approach when looking at such things. i
: n this case, the several things mentioned are:
: (1) tax cuts, which puts more disposable income in the hands of the consumer
: , so they have a CHOICE whether they'll spend or save that money. you have a
: point that most of the 800B will end up with the wealthy.
: (2) deleveraging and higher savings rates. this is as much a both a math pro
: blem as it is a psychological/confidence problem.
: (3) shall we let the government to use our money on behalf of us only becaus
: e its borrowing cost is higher?
: we can debate each of these questions all day long. but here are my basic ar
|
v****e
发帖数: 19471 | 24 I'm arguing if the average joe buys some clothes and a few pair of shoes for
himself and his family, the money goes into the system and circulates acros
s the private secto. That I believe is the more healthy way, because private
sector cares about how efficiently that cash is being used, while the gover
nment doesn't because it is not being closely watched and spurred by a group
of shareholders and creditors.
on the second issue, where I agree with you math, I tend to believe that the
$8b can be fully offset, then some, if a meaningful portion of the $800b do
es go into the economy and does its job.
let's not worry about currency devaluation or inflation at this point. The
10% u
nemployment rate (12.4% in CA) is the top priority, and for a domestic consu
mption driven economy, jobs will not be back until the consumer is back.
you
average
almost
【在 s*******g 的大作中提到】
: you are arguing that your average joe blow can invest the money (thru
: savings or spending) better than the government, that might be true but you
: also have to take into consideration 2 factors that result from the loans
: the government will surely take out to fund itself
: 1. interest rate, for examples if the net gain for giving it to the average
: american is 3%, then uncle sam borrows money from hu core at a rate of 4%,
: then that's a net loss, regardless of what the government does with the
: money.
: 2. currency devaluation, that $800B in the tax breaks will result in almost
: the same amount in loans over the next 2 years, and after 2 years that
|
B*D
发帖数: 5016 | 25 摘取一段话
“
既然资本主义的固有矛盾原因在于资本的利润需求，也就是说在劳动成果分配上资本那
大头，劳动力拿小头造成劳动力消费不足，那么只能用资本的大量消费来平衡这个等式
，也就是说，这就是政府天生在抑制资本和平衡等式上的作用，税收被作为一种资本收
益来进行投资（间接消费），也就是可以部分平衡资本利润分配造成经济危机的等式不
平衡。继续往下，结果很明白了，几个实力大致平衡的大财团之间交互产品，或者仅有
一个财团，那么就够了，财团出面平衡过剩产品分配给员工完成平衡，这就是所谓“资
本家不在场的资本主义”理论，最终还是指向社会主义-计划经济-公有制，无路可逃。
这个推导终于完整了，资本主义的下一个进化是社会主义而且必须在发达资本主义国家
率先突破，在起始实验阶段需要外界能量输入，在慢慢圆熟过程中逐步自给自足完成内
循环，这就是资本主义走向社会主义的路径，超国家财团组织吞噬一切，或者某个国家
吞噬一切。
两个路径：
1某超级国家融合一切国家进入社会主义社会。
2某财团并购一切企业进入社会主义社会。”
不管怎么说，帝国之间的竞争，政府发展的趋势肯定是越来越大
其实政府是财阀的统治工具，所以这个也不是坏事
减税也好，加税也好，我觉得是否能解决就业，克服经济周期
关键还是看政策的实质能否解决穷人的消费不足
就目前这个减税政策来说，对中产减税，延长失业铺贴等等，都一定程度上缓解
消费不足，但是其实对富人，尤其是超过1m收入的人，应该加税
美帝估计会成为财阀形式的社会主义
google控制信息流，facebook 等控制网上的人际关系，walmart、amazon等控制实物流
等等
其实生活在局域网内也是很幸福的
f
econo
gr
【在 v****e 的大作中提到】
: Even if this tax bill saves me only a couple hundred dollar, I'm still all f
: or it. tax cutting is the only proven effective way to help accelerate econo
: mic recovery and improve unemployment situation. plus this government has gr
: own too big the last two years and really needs to shrink.
|
