It's a compelling argument. I tend not to be as libertarian as the CATO Institute, but it's compelling.
I prefer to return the money to individuals because the government likes to specify what money should be used for. I love that specification when it's something important like interstate highways or a national health program, but telling schools that they all need new computers isn't useful. Maybe they don't. Maybe they need money spent on insulation. But, if you're only offering money for computers, schools will take it even if most of their computers are 6 months old.
I do worry about individuals squandering it though. That's kinda what got us into this mess. We had much so we spent it all and didn't plan for a rainy day. Maybe an elimination of taxes on bank interest earned under $1,000 would be a good step. Maybe a government matching for the interest on that savings (a negative tax) up to $500? That would really encourage people to stash money away (and stashing money in banks allows banks to lend that money to businesses who help the economy). Maybe it isn't such a great idea, idk.
Even better, _eliminate the portion of payroll taxes that businesses have to pay_! (or reduce it). Probably the best tax relief. It means that the cost of employing someone drops meaning that they can either: 1) employ more people; 2) pay people more. That's a real win for labor and companies and probably better than simply lowering personal income tax. As the cost of employing someone goes down, demand for employees goes up. I like this idea. Great way to lower the unemployment rate.
I just feel like random government spending isn't wise. Spending to create good value is awesome! I love social security, national health, interstates, etc. I don't like the government trying to spend its way to stimulating the economy. In that case, they aren't looking at value created, but rather getting dollars into other people's hands.
1 comment
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 10.6 ms ] threadI prefer to return the money to individuals because the government likes to specify what money should be used for. I love that specification when it's something important like interstate highways or a national health program, but telling schools that they all need new computers isn't useful. Maybe they don't. Maybe they need money spent on insulation. But, if you're only offering money for computers, schools will take it even if most of their computers are 6 months old.
I do worry about individuals squandering it though. That's kinda what got us into this mess. We had much so we spent it all and didn't plan for a rainy day. Maybe an elimination of taxes on bank interest earned under $1,000 would be a good step. Maybe a government matching for the interest on that savings (a negative tax) up to $500? That would really encourage people to stash money away (and stashing money in banks allows banks to lend that money to businesses who help the economy). Maybe it isn't such a great idea, idk.
Even better, _eliminate the portion of payroll taxes that businesses have to pay_! (or reduce it). Probably the best tax relief. It means that the cost of employing someone drops meaning that they can either: 1) employ more people; 2) pay people more. That's a real win for labor and companies and probably better than simply lowering personal income tax. As the cost of employing someone goes down, demand for employees goes up. I like this idea. Great way to lower the unemployment rate.
I just feel like random government spending isn't wise. Spending to create good value is awesome! I love social security, national health, interstates, etc. I don't like the government trying to spend its way to stimulating the economy. In that case, they aren't looking at value created, but rather getting dollars into other people's hands.