Ideas for Stimulating the Economy

#2
#2
No minimum wage.

No income tax (individual or corporate).

No EPA.

No National Parks.

Instant stimulation.
 
#4
#4
YorkVol said:
Agree with first 3.

Also:

Get rid of property taxes

Add use tax
Click to expand...

Agree re: taxes.

Also, I understand the difficulties that would be involved in getting rid of the current National Parks; however, no more private land should be taken and/or "bought" by the government from those who own the land. Teddy's original National Parks project and the wide use of eminent domain was nothing but theft from both individuals and their generational homes as well as from many logging and mining outfits.
 
#6
#6
therealUT said:
No minimum wage.

No income tax (individual or corporate).

No EPA.

No National Parks.

Instant stimulation.
Click to expand...

Got to have a minimum wage set. Need an income tax as the sales tax is a poor persons tax. EPA is up in the air...keep it, but revise it. I see no reason to get rid of National Parks.
 
Last edited:
#7
#7
MSUDuo said:
No minimum wage?
Click to expand...

GoBigOrangeUT said:
Got to have a minimum wage set. Need an income tax as the sales tax is a poor persons tax. EPA is up in the air...keep it, but revise it. I see no reason to get rid of National Parks.
Click to expand...

1. Why must there be a minimum wage? The increase in minimum wages has never been shown to result in an increase in real (as opposed to nominal) wages (and, some increases in the minimum wage have actually resulted in significant decreases in real wages).

2. A sales tax, like all other taxes, is a middle class tax. Further, the federal government can label many items tax-free (e.g., food and second-hand items) which will actually help the poor. Sales taxes at the state level do not always work because it is easy for many (especially in the smaller eastern states) to buy from another state; it is much harder for many to purchase goods on a regular basis from another country.

3. The EPA is unnecessary.

4. Re: National Parks, why is it right for the government to steal private land simply because that land happens to be in a beautiful place?
 
#9
#9
therealUT said:
1. Why must there be a minimum wage? The increase in minimum wages has never been shown to result in an increase in real (as opposed to nominal) wages (and, some increases in the minimum wage have actually resulted in significant decreases in real wages).

2. A sales tax, like all other taxes, is a middle class tax. Further, the federal government can label many items tax-free (e.g., food and second-hand items) which will actually help the poor. Sales taxes at the state level do not always work because it is easy for many (especially in the smaller eastern states) to buy from another state; it is much harder for many to purchase goods on a regular basis from another country.

3. The EPA is unnecessary.

4. Re: National Parks, why is it right for the government to steal private land simply because that land happens to be in a beautiful place?
Click to expand...

So, instead on making $7.25, I'd be making $2. Sounds good...

Maybe National Parks are there so we can't destroy everything there is? We see how bad it is in other countries, I don't want that here
 
#10
#10
MSUDuo said:
So, instead on making $7.25, I'd be making $2. Sounds good...
Click to expand...

Real wages vs. nominal wages.

US_Real_Wages_1964-2004.gif


Adjusted for 2004.

MSUDuo said:
Maybe National Parks are there so we can't destroy everything there is? We see how bad it is in other countries, I don't want that here
Click to expand...

The greater good, right? If the government came to take your land, I imagine you would have a different response.
 
#11
#11
Sorry, numbers aren't my thing. I have no clue what that chart is saying. Probably should have stayed out of that one.

As for the land, at one point I probably would have agreed. Not sure I would now
 
#12
#12
In order for a decade or two worth of growth, let's rob our land of its natural resources and pillage the countryside for all its worth so there is permanent damage for the next 20 generations. Yall are acting like the govt is going state to state, town to town to town buying "pretty land" by eminent domain. So if the govt is stealing people's land their families have owned for years for mark parks and such, the same logic would make the tva and its lakes a crime.
 
#13
#13
MSUDuo said:
Sorry, numbers aren't my thing. I have no clue what that chart is saying. Probably should have stayed out of that one.
Click to expand...

Easy breakdown:
A and B live in identical houses eating identical food on islands that are identical except for the following:
1. A earns $10/year and his costs for the year are $5.
2. B earns $100/year and his costs for the year are $90.

Who is wealthier, A or B?

MSUDuo said:
As for the land, at one point I probably would have agreed. Not sure I would now
Click to expand...

It is tough; I enjoy hiking through the Smokies. I think it is nice to be able to camp in Yellowstone. As long as I do not think about the individuals that lost their homes and their land, I enjoy my time immensely; however, I think it is absolutely wrong that they were forced off their land and out of their homes and that cost is not worth my benefit.
 
#14
#14
Mr. Tri Star said:
In order for a decade or two worth of growth, let's rob our land of its natural resources and pillage the countryside for all its worth so there is permanent damage for the next 20 generations. Yall are acting like the govt is going state to state, town to town to town buying "pretty land" by eminent domain. So if the govt is stealing people's land their families have owned for years for mark parks and such, the same logic would make the tva and its lakes a crime.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct; and, it was a crime.

I would rather exploit and use the natural resources than just let them lay dormant. If someone owns land, they should be allowed to use it as they see fit; it that means they want to sell the timber, then they sell the timber.
 
#15
#15
therealUT said:
Easy breakdown:
A and B live in identical houses eating identical food on islands that are identical except for the following:
1. A earns $10/year and his costs for the year are $5.
2. B earns $100/year and his costs for the year are $90.

Who is wealthier, A or B?
Click to expand...

B?


It would be one thing if prices of products would be lowered if the minimum wage went away but you know that wouldn't happen
 
Last edited:
#16
#16
MSUDuo said:
B?
Click to expand...

Only if B can get off the island and over to A's island; if not, A is actually much wealthier than B (A can live an entire year without working; B can only live 1/9 of a year without working).

MSUDuo said:
It would be one thing if prices of products would be lowered if the minimum wage went away but you know that wouldn't happen
Click to expand...

The only way it does not happen is if there is no market competition; however, competitors are always going to try to undercut the prices of their competition. Hence, prices fall when wages fall.

Also, the minimum wage was stagnant from 1997 through 2007 (the longest period in which minimum wage has been stagnant since it was introduced) and, yet, the real wage increased (there were, of course, other factors involved, but one cannot argue against the fact that the purchasing power of an individual rose while their nominal wage remained constant).
 
#17
#17
Interesting. Even if I don't understand it all. (I do about person A being wealthier)
 
#20
#20
Change EPA/EEOC/OSHA to full cost/benefit analysis programs where clear benefits (net of costs including employment impact) must be demonstrated to enact new regulations.

Flatten and simplify tax code including major reduction (if not elimination) of corporate taxation.

Simplify programs aimed at higher education - particularly those that favor college over trade schools.

Greatly reduce or eliminate the Department of Education - particularly any curricular impact it has that distracts from basic (3 Rs) education.

Rationalize immigration so that we can attract world's best and brightest; not just the world's most disadvantaged.

Being truly agnostic on energy policy with the philosophy in the first point RE regulations.

Add term limits to mitigate the impact of special interests (may or may not work) so in conjunction with the regulatory change and tax code it is harder for legislation that picks winners and losers to be implemented.

Balance the budget.

Finally, stop demonizing business from the bully pulpit.
 
#22
#22
DefenseisDesire said:
What do you all think of a Balanced Budget Amendment?
Click to expand...

I generally don't like adding Amendments - too restrictive. There would need to be loopholes to allow deficit spending in certain cases (war, national emergency, etc.)

OTOH, we probably would never have one without an amendment.
 
#23
#23
DefenseisDesire said:
What do you all think of a Balanced Budget Amendment?
Click to expand...

I am against it; there are times in which we may need to borrow and leverage debt, and such an Amendment would make that near impossible.

I think that Congress should attempt to balance the budget, though; and, it should be SOP to spend less than is taken in and pay down the debt with the extra. Once that debt is gone, it should be SOP to spend less than is taken in and then return the remainder to those who paid taxes, by percentage they paid.
 
#24
#24
therealUT said:
Agree re: taxes.

Also, I understand the difficulties that would be involved in getting rid of the current National Parks; however, no more private land should be taken and/or "bought" by the government from those who own the land. Teddy's original National Parks project and the wide use of eminent domain was nothing but theft from both individuals and their generational homes as well as from many logging and mining outfits.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with that, I just like national parks. Like most Americans I prefer fixes that don't hurt... ;)
 
#25
#25
Get rid of every federal oversight and regulation committee, and deregulate everything that the government has regulated or forbidden. The government is by the people and for the people, not to protect the people from themselves.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top