let's go back to pre-Bush tax cuts.
That way, we ALL get to share, not just the one per-centers.
And we end the extension of UE thereby making it worthwhile to see employment, rather than UNemployment.
After a few months, then suggest Congress take a look at a new flat tax and a new way to subsidize employment RATHER THAN pay UNemployment.
See how that works?
I think you mean the pre-Bush tax RATES.
What do you mean by "a new way to subsidize employment"? That's exactly the kind of stuff government employees always say. I'm guessing you're probably one.
We need jobs that PAY FOR THEMSELVES, which is what the overwhelming majority of jobs were before the government sector got so huge.
Employment, or at least the kind that pay for themselves, comes from investment by business. Period.
Small business in particular has been reluctant to invest because of stuff coming out of this administration, including the coming implementation of Obamacare. There's also a tidal wave of new regulations expected now that Obama's safely reelected. That's a big reason the recovery has been so bad.
I'm not a Govt. employee. I'm an employer.
That aside, I'm merely suggesting thinking about subsidizing (in some way) or supplementing and rewarding a person for getting off unemployment and working at a job.
Right now the incentive is not to work. Make the incentive to work.
It's just a small part of the entire puzzle. Not the solution.
It would be to your benefit to read the Grace Commission report. Income taxes extracted under threat of violence do not go to run the government. Instead it's the mechanism to pay the international gangbanksters the usury they charge for creating money out of nothing and the other bondholders....if there's anything left after that, it goes to "transfer payments", which through the same threat of violence government takes your money and gives it to others they deem more worthy of it.
They put the income tax in place in preparation for the Federal Reserve Act, all in 1913. Congressman McFadden stood in the well of the House and asked his contemporaries to consider how they were going to explain the income tax to the people back home when the government had a surplus.
YDM keeps confusing corporate and personal income tax rates. We already had this discussion. He's referring to the cut in the PERSONAL income tax rate from 91% and then 70% and then to 50% in 1981.
He comes up with this hypothetical example intended to demonstrate that a small businessman who pays the personal income taxes will hire someone at high tax rate but won't at a low tax rate but the example is stupid.
His nitwit example as I recall went something like this:
If somebody runs a one man shop and makes say $50,000 before taxes any you raise his taxes from 30% to 90%, he'll get so PO'd over paying those taxes that he'll hire someone instead of doing it all by himself. He makes up numbers in such a way that his total revenue will increase, IIRC, and the businessman winds up with somewhat less after tax income but with an additional hire who does most of his work. Voila! High taxes create jobs!
The key is his example doesn't address the question of what he would earn after taxes if he hired the person at lower tax rates. He would have to earn more than he's currently making at a low income tax rate, using the same revenue assumptions. So therefore his #$%$ example implicitly assumes the businessman has no interest in making more money, just in minimizing the taxes he pays.
He then extrapolates this absurd one-man-business theory to large corporations. It assumes that large corporations will want to earn less every year by hiring people they think they don't really need, to avoid paying taxes. And again he can't seem to distinguish between corporate and personal income tax rates. Corporate rates have never been 70%.
As for corporate taxes he has stated that none of them actually pay any taxes, another element of the la la land he exists in.
Austerity cuts work this way. First you cut, then you figure out how to cut expenses.
If your household is underwater, you cut to stop the bleeding. Then when to want to add back things you feel you need, you find ways to add.You also find ways to possibly increase income. But first, stop the bleeding.
BTW,once business see what they're in store for, uncertainty disappears.
They go back to doing business.
They go back to hiring.
The cycle turns.
Then, the "household" has more money to do with.
It's not trickle down,it's trickle up.
They won't look at a flat tax, they are in the process of becoming one percenters themselves. You know how much money is spent on gaining a Congressional seat. They don't do it to be Patriots.