Interesting debate here. First, what if he didn't create new jobs at a government acceptable rate? What if he just became more efficient and spent less? There's always a rub from folks who don't understand many business models that never comes to a complete agreement of the right way to go about this whole thing. As a business owner (a couple of 'em), I don't need more employees to increase my cashflows. Or I should say, the ratio of worker-to-income is not a straight line.
There always a sense of mindset to create jobs, create jobs. Technology sometimes does not need new jobs to be effective in the business model. So the assumption here doesn't fit seemlessly. And trickle down was more a function of the wealthy SPENDING their capital, not creating jobs. The tips, the extra purchases, the upgrading of goods, hardware and options on the purchases made the trickle effect spread. Now that did require the poor/needy to be out there pitching. And therein lies the rub for many.
And no, the government shouldn't offer rebates just because the person can't do as much as they'd like. There should not be a government "Feel Good Stipend' just because. That's not a good way to, as you say, level the playing field. One person earns $40k, another earns $75k, yet another earns $250k. That's the world! You can't just start writing checks. And in that same universe are those earning $17.5k, and they are a reality. The true answer, while simple and complex, is one that most do not care to accept. And they need your sorrow!
Government spending more than they have? Therein is the root of most of the trouble. Budgets can balance! It's called spend only what you have in house! Period! Will it happen? Not as long as WE continue to allow them to play on heartstrings and sympathy as the basis for over-spending. The public doesn't have the balls to stop them yet. But will they ever?
And somehow we are to BELIEVE that because it's now going to be a Fair Tax System that they'd adhere to spending limits? That the shortfalls will just go away? The ebbs and flows of the market and economy won't cause a glitch that we need to overlook because we are a caring and loving peoples? PAAAA--Leeeeeese!
And let us not factor in government corruption, mortgage bailouts, banking troubles, housing slowdowns, wall street jitters....the need to save social security. And have you noticed that administrative costs are never even close to target. But they'll start now with Fair Taxes I'm sure.
Quote from TopTrader8:
But under this scenario, what if the rich guy owns a business?
Would he not have more money to create new jobs?
I believe this was part of the Reaganomics economic theory called trickle down economics. Right?
And, yes the government could offer tax rebates to the poor guy to level the playing field a little.
And, when the government starts spending more than what they are taking in, won't they start borrowing money like they always do? So what's the difference?
No, the government's receiving revenues under the fair tax system should give them incentive to cut wasteful government spending anyway.
The post above from Alpine is excellent. I toldly agree with him.