Skip to main content

View Diary: California: Back in the black with progressive governance (134 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  tax hikes take money out of the economy (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    karmsy, wsexson, midwesterner

    they slow down the economy, or at best (assuming the people taxed aren't spending it) they have a zero effect, unless the money is spent on stimulus.

    In California's case, tax hikes are necessary to raise revenue to pay for stimulus, since states can't go into the red; the federal government doesn't suffer from that restriction and so can institute stimulus without any corresponding tax hikes (cf. the New Deal).

    Deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility are not what we should be practicing now. It's time for stimulus and public spending to rebuild infrastructure and services and fight climate change.

    Unfortunately, the modern Democratic party takes deficit reduction as an article of faith, regardless of the situation. But as I said in another post, look what happens to Democratic politicians who don't toe that line and propose new spending.

    "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

    by limpidglass on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 05:01:07 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  May be true. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ahumbleopinion

      You may well be absolutely right about the need for a stimulus (particularly when so many public-sector jobs have been destroyed).

      What I tried to emphasize in my comment above, though-- what I find terribly exciting--is the new rhetorical de-coupling by President Obama of "tax breaks for the wealthy" from "tax breaks for everyone else." One is to be excoriated; the other is to be defended. This meme is brand-new, and it will catch on, believe me. In time, even Fox News watchers won't question it.

      It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

      by karmsy on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 05:12:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'd say it redistributes the money (5+ / 0-)

      rather than taking it out -- if you're spending that money on infrastructure, the money is going to supplies to repair and build infrastructure (supporting those businesses) and to the workers who will be repairing and building the infrastructure (who will then put that money back into the economy themselves). So instead of having that money go into a savings account where it does little good, it actually ends up in the pockets of people. Even if you're paying a portion of it to bureaucrats to administer the programs, those bureaucrats need to buy things eventually, as do their administrative assistants and other staff members.

      "If we ever needed to vote we sure do need to vote now" -- Rev. William Barber, NAACP

      by Cali Scribe on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 06:05:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Tax cuts for the rich are more likely to take (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      karmsy

      money out of the economy if they result in a reduction in government services or investment. The Bush tax cuts which disproportionately benefited the rich in large part ended up being invested in other countries, stashed in tax havens and off shore accounts.  If the taxes had been collected by the government they would more likely have been spent on infrastructure, education, other government programs in the US.

      “The future depends entirely on what each of us does every day.” Gloria Steinem

      by ahumbleopinion on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 07:38:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site