[ale] Corporate taxes...

[Joseph A Knapka]

Jonathan Glass wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 11:36, Kilroy, Chris wrote:
> 
>>->More money in federal income
>>->directly translates to less free capital in the open economy.
>>
>>not necessarily.  the only time i was ever in a business class in my life (1991), the government was  
>>actually contributing roughly 33% of the GDP through employment,
> 
> grants, etc.  depending on the way in which revenue is shifted and
> spending adjusted in federal budgets, does not ensure that more net GDP
> flows into the economy.  for instance if taxes are lowered and as such
> less federal jobs exist, that doesnt necessarily result in an
> improvement to the economy.  
> 
> 
> BUT, the Gov't gets its money from the income earners, and spends it
> less efficiently than that income earner would.

What does that mean, exactly? Is it "more efficient" for me to buy
a BMW, or for that $40K to be spent on improving the quality of
education at a public school? I think it depends on your
time horizon. Most individuals will use their money for their
personal comfort and gain, and damn the long-term consequences.
Ideally, the government would make investments with a longer
horizon, though I admit we're far from that ideal at present -
and after all, the government is made up of individuals, but
that's why we have rules and institutions that govern matters
at a level higher than that of the individual.

And this argument is not entirely about economics. It may be
that Mr Robertson is 100% correct on the economic issues -
I don't know enough about economics yet to say. But there
are a great many intangibles, such as general quality of
life, the welfare of our grandchildren and their descendants,
etc, that must be considered in order to make *wise*
decisions.

Cheers,

-- Joe


---
This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be 
sent to listmaster at ale dot org.