I'll bet the answer is a bit of a toss-up. I happen to favor direct investment in infrastructure since I'm in that industry, and at least that way some of the benefit is more directly "redistributed" back to the owners and major shareholders of the companies who are impacted by the higher tax rates.There are infrastructure projects that I believe can help with the economy. For instance, the widening of Rt 93 in NH from the MA border up to Manchester can provide better access to southern NH for businesses who which to locate there. I mentioned expanding natural gas infrastructure before. This would have a two fold effect of direct employment (excavation, pipe laying, etc) and providing a cheaper source of energy to home and business owners (more money in their pockets to spend). Maybe go 50% toward deficit reduction, 25% direct investment, and 25% to lower quintiles.Taxing the upper quintile and transferring that money to the lowest quintile would be politically difficult. I would mot favor that because it would remove motivation for someone in a lower quintile to move up. Part of the problem with welfare, at least prior to the Clinton era reform, was that it was designed to keep you dependent. I'd much rather see the money invested in infrastructure which would provide jobs and opportunity to the lower quintile to improve their standing. It also addresses a long standing issue. Let me emphasize that any plan like this needs to be accompanied by commensurate cuts in spending to ultimately be effective.Agreed. The cuts need to come from the largest expenditures, military and entitlements, otherwise you're not approaching it in a serious manner if you think discretionary spending will get you there. Grape
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra