I think you might like the concepts in this post. http://morganisteconomics.blogspot.com/2011/02/trickle-down-theory-and-time.html
why repackage failed policies? Look at the top 500 corp. sitting on record cash supplies they could hire if they wanted to.How much bigger does the pile of cash have to be before you figure they hire. business hire as increased demand for their products can't be handled by current labor force. Not because their revenue or profits rise.In fact the objective is to make as much money with as less input as possible. Have you ever thought of giving tax breaks to the people who create jobs the consumers. No matter how much cash you give to business they will not hire until current labor force is overwhelmed by consumerism. Either wages or credit has to go up for the consumer, you can tinker with taxes all you want nothing will happen. This simple concept seems to escape supply siders and neo liberals. i guess i would just rename my business every year to avoid your time tax. But ya if you can just come up with some magic tax formula consumers wouldn't be needed at all
Businesses create consumption too. The small business will create more than large because it has to expend more.
business only consume to provide a product for final consumption no consumers = no business consumption
the system as a whole has to be able to consume what it produces without going into(much) debt. An imbalanced ( what we have currently) system where consumers must go into debt to afford products of their labor in the aggregate is not sustainable or just. there are alternatives to neo classical economics. Steven Keen has done some good work with sustainable systems http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/models/
Flat taxation is the most uncomplicated and "fairest" of all taxation regimes. Everyone, even corporations, pays a certain fixed percent of income, no matter how high they earn on the pay scale, which simplifies the paperwork (a simple note with amount earned and tax withdrawn) and encourages everyone to work smarter/harder/more because IN THE END, they earn more for working more, as opposed to being penalized for it under the current regime. Big money would come back to the United States as there would be less incentive to risk jail + penalties for hiding income offshore. Everyone wins, even the government. I remember reading an article that compared how much of current US GDP percent-wise the govt collects in taxes under the current tax regime, and how much it would collect if there were a flat tax. It was nearly the same amount, and that figure didn't take into account all the money that would be coming back to the mainland.
People are no longer needed in the future. Labor efficiency is increasing at an exponential pace. Didn't you get the memo? There is no work that can not be done off shore or contracted at a significantly reduced cost. Why would a corperation spend money in this economic condition. Everybody is waiting for the other side to make the first move. Akuma
if there is no need for people then there is no need for products. what work will be contracted over seas if no products are needed. corporations, production would be obsolete right along with people. that's the point of my post, until consumers spend there is no amount of taxes that can be cut to stimulate growth.
Thank you for your link. It seems very interesting I will look at it. The one thing I will say is that the concepts you raise only concern domestic economies and the demand and supply of foreign economies has an impact on an economy so the domestic credit and consumption is only one aspect of a much deeper system. I can see your point, which you raised well and has some merit but I still think that the suggestion I made would be advantageous once the potential weaknesses you mentioned are dealt with.