Letter: Economics of consumption
Candidates for public office would not dare to suggest that long term, taxes will not go down. All prices, including food, health care, houses, oil, cars, have all gone up and will continue to do so in the future. The real reason being the fallin...
Candidates for public office would not dare to suggest that long term, taxes will not go down. All prices, including food, health care, houses, oil, cars, have all gone up and will continue to do so in the future. The real reason being the falling value of the dollar.
The president is taking credit for the good economy, when in fact we are constantly reminded that consumption is the generator of our economy. Remember when we were reminded after 9/11 that it was our patriotic duty to spend money and we did, thanks not to tax cuts, but cheap money, mainly home equity loans that amounted to trillions.
The government induced us to do this by allowing home equity loan interest to be deductible, and of course the mortgage industry made sure we all knew about it. The result is total mortgages now twice the amount owed in 1995, over $7 trillion.
Turning to things we might do something about, the last Legislature did not achieve the dedication of a portion of the sales tax to the environment, but now all the candidates can't say enough about how we need to pass it next time they have a chance. Do you really believe this will lower your taxes?
Could the result really be to free legislators from their job of deciding what the allocation of money should be? Why should legislators ask voters to dedicate via a constitutional amendment all vehicle sales taxes to transportation, when all they would have to do to achieve this is appropriate the funds? Would a constitutional dedication of revenue be appropriate 50 years from now? Would it be too much or too little? Why do we hear so little about the possible pitfalls of such proposals?
Alec G. Olson