In my recollection tax cuts are self-licking lollipops to the tune of about 1/3 to 1/2. Some are much better, some much worse. From a philosophical standpoint though, they provide more freedom for the citizen, which most people think is a good thing (except those looking to increase dependence on government, keeping eternal constituencies… nobody like that on this board though :rolleyes: )
The point is, the brain surgeons I’m currently jousting with are denying that tax cuts have a stimulative effect on employment. Hell, even Hentor’s own Krugman quote
which he trotted out in a vain attempt to try to argue with me actually proves my point. EVERYONE agrees that tax cuts lead to job growth. Everyone. Indirect job creation still = job creation. Too bad so many people can’t admit the truth, when it runs counter to their own agenda.
That’s a bit like me saying that you can paint the foundation of your house with a bucket of paint and a plastic drink straw, but that a brush, paint sprayer, or even a rag on a stick would be preferable. Then Mr. Smashy runs off to a message board to quote me as saying that “you can paint your foundation with a straw and a bucket of paint.” See! See! Even Hentor supports using a straw to paint your foundation.
This generation of conservatives really is the Fox News generation. Mendacity and deception is their bread and butter. Most people would rather find evidence of someone making a strong declaration in support of their postion, but people like Mr. Smashy would rather selectively excise words from context and try to base their argument on an appeal to the authority of someone who actually disagrees with them.
Yes, that matches my recollection also. And, IIRC, the highest multiplier I saw was ~1.7, and I think it was for unemployment or some other social safety net.
Well, no. My point was a factual one – assuming I understood you properly, you said that tax cuts provided more “bang-for-the-buck” than federal spending. Which is simply false, at least when using economic multipliers as the metric, and should be retracted.
If I said that then I retract it. What I meant to say, and what I’d check if I did say if I weren’t too lazy to go back and find it in this thread, is that the only question is whether there’s more bang for the buck, job-creation-wise, with either tax cuts or fed spending. I wouldn’t suggest that one is always better than the other (actually I’m not a conservative; just compared to some on this board I guess).
There is always much to consider wrt pros and cons of either approach; as Krugman pointed out in his blog I found using about 3 seconds of Google-fu and somehow Hentor continues to misunderstand, tax cuts work much faster for job creation. Some people (including me) feel that they are usually preferable to federal spending, if only because, as Sam might say, they put the power (economic liberty?) back in the hands of the people, not a bureaucracy.
Well, I felt a responsibility to go back and check for you, having made the charge. You mentioned it in two posts (which I’ve slightly cropped for relevance):
So, it appears that I was wrong and did not understand you properly. Mea culpa.
Hentor, I’m not sure if you are intentionally ignoring the facts or just unable to comprehend them. It feels like you want to have an honest conversation about this, so I’ll try one more time (Digital, listen up because you’ll find this interesting too).
What is the 3rd alternative you’ve suggested, if not a tax cut?
Also, to complete your education, check out Krugman’s ‘Conscience of a Liberal’ blog from a mere 3 weeks ago
Check out the chart (from CBO)
Of the top 6 ways to increase job creation in 2010 (as opposed to 2011), 3 are tax cuts… and a fourth might as well be (allowing for accelerated expensing for businesses, which then reduces their tax burden).
Aid to states and more infrastructure are both listed as 2011 (ie, slower than tax cuts) impacts to jobs. Remember, this is taken from the blog of the most lefty economist out there, not from Heritage or Cato.
I hope you’ll take the high road and acknowledge this, and not play games like some of the losers on this board.
This is very simple. You claim that Krugman says tax cuts work faster than federal spending. I’ll quote you:
I’m all ears and entirely ready to conceded that Krugman believes what you say he believes. All you need to do is quote him saying so. It’s just that simple. I await your reply.
Note to others: Here’s my problem. Krugman tends to say things like the following:
Since he’s on record as saying things that very much oppose Mr. Smashy’s characterization of his positions, all I need to see is a specific quote from Krugman.
You’ve created a nice little strawman, well done. In post 276 of this thread, I bring up Krugman by saying, to Sam
Will they be faster than increased spending (which Krugman, as hardcore liberal, is a big fan of)? In some cases (but not always, as you imply in your strawman). Krugman admits as much in his post from last year
Please go back and read the last sentence, from your guy Krugman, again. Then read it a third time.
Then go back to the CBO-data driven-chart I referenced in post 308, on this page. This is taken from Krugman’s blog, and he doesn’t refute the data (showing that tax cuts work faster than increased spending for job creation during this recession).
So because it’s a chart and not words I can’t quote them in this reply. But hopefully you’ll get the point anyway.
Tax cuts create jobs. Say this over and over. This was the point that Sam and Magell were trying to make as well, I think. It’s undisputed fact. Do they always work faster than increased spending? I wouldn’t go that far. Are they always a better bang for the taxpayer buck when it comes to job creation? I wouldn’t say that either.
That’s all well and good, but not the point. You’ve specifically recruited Krugman as an ally in your assertion that tax cuts work faster than federal spending for job creation. You cannot cite him saying that.
You can cite him saying that there was a role for tax cuts in the large stimulus package because at that time there were not enough shovel ready projects to have all the stimulus be done in terms of federal funding of projects.
Problem is, that doesn’t have him saying that tax cuts work faster than federal spending, which is your claim, and that wasn’t specific to job creation (although it is of course related), which was also your claim.
Can you cite Krugman saying what you said he says, or not?
And of course tax cuts are different from tax credits.
A tax cut is a reduction in taxes. A tax credit is a tax cut on steroids, in that it’s a dollar for dollar reduction in the tax you owe. Both do the same thing: put more money in the pockets of people, and less confiscated by the treasury.
You want to play semantic games, fine. But most people get this.
Please don’t focus on the wrong thing. The point here is: tax credits and tax cuts both reduce the tax burden to the citizen or taxpayer and put money in the hands of private industry or people.
If you go back and read Krugman’s chart that he built from CBO data, you’ll see that the job-creation engines with the fastest results were all measures that did that. Those that took longer were the traditional liberal solutions, ie greater government spending and infrastructure investment.