Given this, every dollar NOT collected in taxes from the private sector would be more
- If NOT collected, the WHOLE dollar stays in the economy, stimulating growth.
- f collected and spent by the government, at least 20% of the money (via taxes) flows
right back into the government without having done anything stimulative!
Is it correct to say, therefore, that a dollar in taxes (and spending) cut from the government
budget is at least 20% more stimulative than a dollar of taxes spent by the government?
(I am assuming the overall tax load on the economy, including all levels of government, is
at least 20%. Many economists argue that the total tax load is closer to 50%. I am heavily
discounting their arguments, and still find "government spending" very inefficient at
stimulating/growing the economy.)
Whenever the President talks about spending X dollars on "stimulus", he should recognize
that simply NOT collecting and spending that money would be at least 20% more efficient
at stimulating the economy.
And a final point: taxes not collected are immediately available to the tax payers to spend
or invest in the economy, stimulating it for all of us, creating jobs for some of us. Taxes go
through a long and slow process, with high overhead, into before they find their way back
into the economy as pay for a new government employee, government grant or contract.
Want to stimulate the economy? …create jobs? …efficiently? You now see HOW. Tell
your politician. Inform your representatives. Tell other voters to do the same! The answer is
obvious. Why is it overlooked? Politicians want power… cutting taxes and spending reduces
their power over us and their abiility to justify their own salary. Again, the answer is obvious.
Put the nation’s financial health and security ahead of personal political gain!!!