I keep getting email from Moveon.org and other liberal groups I
belong to urging me to write letters supporting the big Democratic
economic package. These emails carp at the Republicans and ask
me for money and other support. That's not going to happen
because I think this bill is as dumb as it gets.
I'm more in tune with the Republicans on the whole stimulus/bailout/tax cut
issues. I think they are dead wrong too, but perhaps less wrong than the
Democrats. Here's how I'd run the country if I could:
We may need to do some direct investment, but most of this
should be done by incentive: tax rebates to encourage the things we
need (solar energy, less polluting cars, insulation and so on). Direct
investment can be wasted and subverted.
Note that I have
no more ideas than the next guy on WHICH things need incentives
and which need direct investment but that may be less important
than just doing something. If we all THINK that solar energy is
the right choice, we'll move in that direction and it will help
stimulate spending. Whether it helps solve other energy problems
or causes its own slate of problems is almost unimportant right now: if
we could convince everyone that growing 300 pound tomatoes would solve
our problems, investing in technology to do that would help boost
the economy. The "economy" is all psychological anyway.
Not that there are not things we really need to do. We need
bridges rebuilt. We need to clean up our air, our rivers, our oceans. We
need a decent medical system and a better safety net. I'm on board
with that but again I'm hesitant to just throw a ton of money
at it all at once.
The problem with direct money is that it is all too easy to
boondoggle and it's all at once. Incentives and rebates are much
harder to subvert and are doled out more slowly, giving us time to adjust
if it turns out to be wrong. If you just throw a trillion dollars in
the air, what's your next magic trick going to be when it doesn't work?
I'd cut taxes at the low end, including Social Security and
Self Employment taxes. Just tear 'em out entirely for everything
under $50,000 a year and index that so it can't creep back up
again. Start taxing the incomes above that gently but ramp it up
hard as we get toward mid six figures. Raise it mercilessly as we
approach seven figure incomes and then start ratcheting it down and
keep it going down until it disappears somewhere up in the stratosphere.
Call it a "tax cap" - the concept is just the inverse of things like the
Medicare gap. Those making a pile of money would pay dearly
for their success but they'd also have incentive to be even more
successful. We do that with Social Security now for different reasons.
I'd continue that, but tie SSN to the same figures so that it would
keep going until it hit the cut off point. The purpose of this
strange idea is to take away the argument that high taxes on the
wealthy discourage effort - why work hard, why take risks if your
rewards are swept away by taxes? True enough, so we put a cap
on the taxes. Climb high enough on the income ladder and the rest
is all yours to keep (again, indexed of course).
Speaking of taxes, this business with Tom Daschle and his taxes has
me seeing red. If he's really so stupid that he doesn't understand
that "gifts" like that are income, he's too stupid for the post. I'm
happy to see him withdraw - he ought to go to jail!
Unfortunately, that's probably true for all too many of our
duly elected representatives. I'm getting really angry about this
stuff, but of course I, like everyone else, am impotent and they all
know that. It does tick me off, though.
I just read this disgusting
www.boston.com/ news/nation/ washington/articles /2009/02/01/ap _investigation_banks _sought_foreign_workers/
(link dead, sorry)
AP Investigation: Banks sought foreign workers. I'm not an isolationist,
I believe people should be free to work anywhere, but this does show
that these banks deserve nothing but scorn.
I never would have given the banks a dime. As I suggested in
an earlier piece here, I think the way to fix that was to pay
the mortgages of those who can't pay them. That's easy enough
for the IRS to calculate from tax return documents: the banks
report the mortgage interest paid, you or your employer reports earnings
and from that it's easy enough to see who needs help. The IRS then
sends some mortgage payments - the homeowner doesn't lose
their home, the bank doesn't have a dead mortgage.
The IRS would apply a formula and you and your bank would get
a letter saying that they would be paying X amount of your mortgage
each month over the next year. That might be 20%, 50% or 90%, all
dependent on the calculations of your payments vs. income. Note
that this would be recalculated every year, does not throw a pile of money up in the air and can
be adjusted up or down at any time.
Of course there would be dangling strings: real estate investors
are also caught with mortgages they can't afford. As distasteful
as it would be to reward them by paying off their stupid investments,
I think that's still better than just handing money to the banks.
And yes, some other people would get money they do not deserve. Tell
me how the banks deserved anything?
But what do I know? I'm just a high school dropout crazy liberal.
No doubt somebody with a pile of degrees can explain why I am naive,
uneducated and unaware - a trifecta of ignorance. On the other hand, it was people with
piles of degrees that got us into this mess, wasn't it? Oh, yeah,
I almost forgot about that..
Got something to add? Send me email.
Increase ad revenue 50-250% with Ezoic
More Articles by Anthony Lawrence
Find me on Google+
© 2012-07-12 Anthony Lawrence