We must understand that while the rich in many circumstances can be job creators, the Democratic Party view does hold weight with many Americans.
When the rich are taxed more than the middle class are, as we have stated before in posts, they are still rich. The taxes aren't going to change that. When the middle class is taxed a bit less than the rich are (which doesn't happen) then they are most typically still in the middle class.
Suprised?
It's not class warfare. It's not redistributing the wealth. It's just providing a bit more fairness in our tax system. we know that the government is broke. We need to pay off our debt soon, or much of it, for posterity's sake. A huge debt cripples our nation and allows less fiscal flexibility in hard times such as these. Because the times could get even harder if we only cut spending and do not increase revenue, someone must see their taxes go up.
The rich are those who are able to weather such a burden. The middle class has already been screwed. They need the extra money. What they save, they are likely to put back into the economy purchasing goods, food, and electronics for themselves and their families. The rich have money to spare, and more often hoard their money than the middle class. Taxing them more is not going to make as much as a difference for them.
Taxing job creators is one thing. Allowing people who don't spend and have plenty of money to spare pay lower taxes than the working middle class is another.
Showing posts with label ideas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ideas. Show all posts
Sunday, November 6, 2011
A Microlending Solution To The Jobs Problem
Several members of the humanitarian community have come upon a tool they find valuable in helping the rabbling masses of poor countries around this world. The concept of microlending has been around since Bangladeshi Muhammad Yunus established the practice with his Grameen bank in 1976. This, these new age philanthropists argue, has been a deciding factor in eliminating poverty.
And it has.
The microlending concept is simple: individuals, such as you, or I, can supply a small sum of money to poor farmers, urban workers, and other disadvantaged members of the economy. In the words of Jeffrey Sachs, an economist at Columbia University, "The key to ending extreme poverty is to enable the poorest of the poor to get their foot on the ladder of development. The ladder of development hovers overhead, and the poorest of the poor are stuck beneath it. They lack the minimum amount of capital necessary to get a foothold, and therefore need a boost up to the first rung. "
This idea has been a large factor in getting many residents of poor areas out of poverty. A study conducted by Professor David Gibbons in Malaysia, at the University of Science there, concluded that upwards of 50 % of the Grameen Bank’s members had escaped poverty within ten years. They also observed a significant elevation of women’s status in their own households.
With these notable successes in mind, it is time, perhaps, that we applied this idea which has caught on around the world, through online donation sites such as Kiva, in order to fix problems in the Western World. The problem in our society is not poverty, though the poverty rate is increasing. Poverty in developing countries means extreme, dirt level poverty, something we do not see often in America.
We ought to utilize the policy of microlending in order to combat this nation’s severe economic problems. The current administration’s attempts at fixing our crisis amounts to little more than lobbing money at more government projects, while the unemployment rate has stubbornly stayed at 9%.
What we need is a concerted effort amongst American businesses, perhaps in partnership with the American government but quite preferably autonomously, in order to facilitate loaning and the distribution of money to those who need it most: job creators. If companies were to set up small lending operations, such as microlending in poorer countries, and then allocate money to ideas, businesses, and people who will employ workers, then this can finally rid us of our economic chaos.
Though we cannot, and should not force businesses to commence such a program, I believe there would be much incentive to do so—even without tax breaks from the government on these job incubators. Many businesses have huge support systems. Car companies like Ford need small companies to design their fluid pressure sensors. Department stores in local marketplaces need regional connections to products that the residents of that specific area find valuable. Phone companies need programmers working out of their garages to create the next hit application. Such a support system is a win-win. If the large companies or wealthy individuals can create these support systems, as well as encourage the creation of additional companies, the whole economy benefits.
This program would be entirely grassroots, and business driven, which is why this idea can actually put Americans back to work, unlike a certain person’s stimulus bill.
Businesses create jobs, not the government. The only role for the government in this quest is to provide the smoothest role possible towards the creations of these lending entities. Hopefully this idea is something that both parties can agree on. While Republicans would like to get much more done, Democrats have obstinately dug in their hooves. We need action. We need a plan.
Taxing the rich, as the Democratic Party would propose, in order to cover the costs of more stimulus, is not as good an idea as they would let on. Many of these rich help create jobs. Additionally, they could help provide the capital for this new lending system. If the rich are willing to spend their money in this system rather than sit on top of it, as many companies are inclined to do in present circumstances, than tax away. But the upper middle class and some rich could provide the capital for this microlending system. The average loan for microlending in Bangladesh is 100 dollars. This is hardly enough to start a small business. Though in order to start creating businesses, a future businessman might not need too much money, he doubtless needs more than a Benjamin.
Perhaps why the concept of microlending can be so effective—and appealing—is that it is built to succeed without interference from large, powerful, national banks. Grameen Bank was a small loaning entity created as a research project. Many microlending services online act like charities. While the greed of bankers and asset traders, who sold off toxic loans from bank to bank, person to person, until loans (which were by now immensely profitable to the banks) were being given out to people who had no authority to even think about getting a loan, microlending sends a smaller amount of capital to a person with a firm belief in their own ideas and a drive to contribute for their families. In a struggling economy, we need such a mindset to help us haul through.
Muhammad Yunus himself recognized the value that his system could add to entrepreneurship. By encouraging people to be entrepreneurs, the poor could climb out of poverty. With special assistance, many enterprising people in America can get the small spark needed to form their own profitable businesses.
With so many problems of our own, it’s time we learned our own lessons. It is time to put America back to work. By stimulating our people to create, innovate, and succeed, we can shed ourselves of economic bondage and create a new entrepreneurial force in our beautiful country.
And it has.
The microlending concept is simple: individuals, such as you, or I, can supply a small sum of money to poor farmers, urban workers, and other disadvantaged members of the economy. In the words of Jeffrey Sachs, an economist at Columbia University, "The key to ending extreme poverty is to enable the poorest of the poor to get their foot on the ladder of development. The ladder of development hovers overhead, and the poorest of the poor are stuck beneath it. They lack the minimum amount of capital necessary to get a foothold, and therefore need a boost up to the first rung. "
This idea has been a large factor in getting many residents of poor areas out of poverty. A study conducted by Professor David Gibbons in Malaysia, at the University of Science there, concluded that upwards of 50 % of the Grameen Bank’s members had escaped poverty within ten years. They also observed a significant elevation of women’s status in their own households.
With these notable successes in mind, it is time, perhaps, that we applied this idea which has caught on around the world, through online donation sites such as Kiva, in order to fix problems in the Western World. The problem in our society is not poverty, though the poverty rate is increasing. Poverty in developing countries means extreme, dirt level poverty, something we do not see often in America.
We ought to utilize the policy of microlending in order to combat this nation’s severe economic problems. The current administration’s attempts at fixing our crisis amounts to little more than lobbing money at more government projects, while the unemployment rate has stubbornly stayed at 9%.
What we need is a concerted effort amongst American businesses, perhaps in partnership with the American government but quite preferably autonomously, in order to facilitate loaning and the distribution of money to those who need it most: job creators. If companies were to set up small lending operations, such as microlending in poorer countries, and then allocate money to ideas, businesses, and people who will employ workers, then this can finally rid us of our economic chaos.
Though we cannot, and should not force businesses to commence such a program, I believe there would be much incentive to do so—even without tax breaks from the government on these job incubators. Many businesses have huge support systems. Car companies like Ford need small companies to design their fluid pressure sensors. Department stores in local marketplaces need regional connections to products that the residents of that specific area find valuable. Phone companies need programmers working out of their garages to create the next hit application. Such a support system is a win-win. If the large companies or wealthy individuals can create these support systems, as well as encourage the creation of additional companies, the whole economy benefits.
This program would be entirely grassroots, and business driven, which is why this idea can actually put Americans back to work, unlike a certain person’s stimulus bill.
Businesses create jobs, not the government. The only role for the government in this quest is to provide the smoothest role possible towards the creations of these lending entities. Hopefully this idea is something that both parties can agree on. While Republicans would like to get much more done, Democrats have obstinately dug in their hooves. We need action. We need a plan.
Taxing the rich, as the Democratic Party would propose, in order to cover the costs of more stimulus, is not as good an idea as they would let on. Many of these rich help create jobs. Additionally, they could help provide the capital for this new lending system. If the rich are willing to spend their money in this system rather than sit on top of it, as many companies are inclined to do in present circumstances, than tax away. But the upper middle class and some rich could provide the capital for this microlending system. The average loan for microlending in Bangladesh is 100 dollars. This is hardly enough to start a small business. Though in order to start creating businesses, a future businessman might not need too much money, he doubtless needs more than a Benjamin.
Perhaps why the concept of microlending can be so effective—and appealing—is that it is built to succeed without interference from large, powerful, national banks. Grameen Bank was a small loaning entity created as a research project. Many microlending services online act like charities. While the greed of bankers and asset traders, who sold off toxic loans from bank to bank, person to person, until loans (which were by now immensely profitable to the banks) were being given out to people who had no authority to even think about getting a loan, microlending sends a smaller amount of capital to a person with a firm belief in their own ideas and a drive to contribute for their families. In a struggling economy, we need such a mindset to help us haul through.
Muhammad Yunus himself recognized the value that his system could add to entrepreneurship. By encouraging people to be entrepreneurs, the poor could climb out of poverty. With special assistance, many enterprising people in America can get the small spark needed to form their own profitable businesses.
With so many problems of our own, it’s time we learned our own lessons. It is time to put America back to work. By stimulating our people to create, innovate, and succeed, we can shed ourselves of economic bondage and create a new entrepreneurial force in our beautiful country.
I selected this post to be featured on Economics Blogs. Please visit the site and vote for my blog!
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Debt Ceiling Political Shenanigans Are Ridiculous
It is time for the politicians to stop trying to gain leverage over each other politically and form a lasting deal that will save this country from financial ruin. A deal that could help in the long run and not hurt as much in the short turn could look like this:
*Cuts to Entitlements--Entitlements are a severe drain on the budget. They will soon become unaffordable. A reasonable deal to limit the cost of these programs is necessary. The Ryan plan may be unreasonable, but it does bring up the issue that we need to change what is broken. We cannot afford to spend loads of money on entitlements down the road.
*Cuts to Defense--We spend WAY too much money on foreign wars, foreign bases, and expensive military technology. We're not saying get rid of all of this, but surely some dough could be had from limiting foreign involvement and doing without a few new ships, tanks, or joint strike fighters. These projects do bring money to several special congressmen's districts, so it may be hard, but limiting the expenditures of the state will surely help us down the road
*Cuts to make government more efficient--Lots of businesses are saving money simply by the way they operate. The government could take a lesson from SOME private sector companies (HINT: NOT BANKS) in order to lower operation costs of some departments. Trimming some here and some there may not seem like much, but applied to the whole government, one can have real and significant change. People might not like it, but hey, we've got to trip money, and that's one way to do it. Trim from the first and second bullets first though.
*Increase in revenue--Notice we didn't say "increase in taxes". While others debate of what the exact meaning of not raising taxes is, there is no denying this: the governmental needs money. In order to temper what will likely be harsh cuts, revenue must come to the government. Taxes are how the government gets its money. So, in order to ensure the severity does not fall to America's industrious middle class, who are fighting for their lives in the recession, we must turn to those who can stomach it, the rich. We have tried trickle down economics, and it has not worked. We need a strong middle class in America, so they shouldn't have to bear the burden of the recession and debt. Another note: if the rich are taxed more, they're still rich, just as if the middle class are taxed less, they are also still in the middle class.
There are doubtless other ideas at how we can cut, trim, increase, decrease, or whatnot. If we come up with any more, we'll definitely post them. Feel free to tell us your own opinions. We shouldn't throw out ideas just because of where they come from. The citizens of this country must have their voice too.
*Cuts to Entitlements--Entitlements are a severe drain on the budget. They will soon become unaffordable. A reasonable deal to limit the cost of these programs is necessary. The Ryan plan may be unreasonable, but it does bring up the issue that we need to change what is broken. We cannot afford to spend loads of money on entitlements down the road.
*Cuts to Defense--We spend WAY too much money on foreign wars, foreign bases, and expensive military technology. We're not saying get rid of all of this, but surely some dough could be had from limiting foreign involvement and doing without a few new ships, tanks, or joint strike fighters. These projects do bring money to several special congressmen's districts, so it may be hard, but limiting the expenditures of the state will surely help us down the road
*Cuts to make government more efficient--Lots of businesses are saving money simply by the way they operate. The government could take a lesson from SOME private sector companies (HINT: NOT BANKS) in order to lower operation costs of some departments. Trimming some here and some there may not seem like much, but applied to the whole government, one can have real and significant change. People might not like it, but hey, we've got to trip money, and that's one way to do it. Trim from the first and second bullets first though.
*Increase in revenue--Notice we didn't say "increase in taxes". While others debate of what the exact meaning of not raising taxes is, there is no denying this: the governmental needs money. In order to temper what will likely be harsh cuts, revenue must come to the government. Taxes are how the government gets its money. So, in order to ensure the severity does not fall to America's industrious middle class, who are fighting for their lives in the recession, we must turn to those who can stomach it, the rich. We have tried trickle down economics, and it has not worked. We need a strong middle class in America, so they shouldn't have to bear the burden of the recession and debt. Another note: if the rich are taxed more, they're still rich, just as if the middle class are taxed less, they are also still in the middle class.
There are doubtless other ideas at how we can cut, trim, increase, decrease, or whatnot. If we come up with any more, we'll definitely post them. Feel free to tell us your own opinions. We shouldn't throw out ideas just because of where they come from. The citizens of this country must have their voice too.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Politicians Must Stand Up For What They Believe In
It's time some politicians got a spine.
There are many issues being discussed, and there are many people with excellent ideas about how to fix or improve our nation. When candidates run for president or another office, however, their views somehow shift to conform rigidly to party lines, sacrificing their individuality and independence as a result.
These are the people who have brought up interesting points and have been credited for working with others, regardless of who their party is. While this practice can get much more done than partisan bickering, many politicians resort to the safety of adherence to party lines.
Elected officials: do not sacrifice your beliefs just to get elected. We need people to take the lead and be an independent mind in government. We all know what the major parties think. The people want to hear what each individual person can bring to the table. With independence in our politicians, we can hope to fix our problems in a more timely fashion and make our country even better.
There are many issues being discussed, and there are many people with excellent ideas about how to fix or improve our nation. When candidates run for president or another office, however, their views somehow shift to conform rigidly to party lines, sacrificing their individuality and independence as a result.
These are the people who have brought up interesting points and have been credited for working with others, regardless of who their party is. While this practice can get much more done than partisan bickering, many politicians resort to the safety of adherence to party lines.
Elected officials: do not sacrifice your beliefs just to get elected. We need people to take the lead and be an independent mind in government. We all know what the major parties think. The people want to hear what each individual person can bring to the table. With independence in our politicians, we can hope to fix our problems in a more timely fashion and make our country even better.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Break Free From Conventionalism. Be your Own Self.
There is an extreme tragedy in government today. It seems that no matter how much arguing, discussion, and "bipartisanship" that goes on in Washington, the major parties still cannot agree on solutions. They remain united against or for different measures, regardless of what the American people, or even at times their own districts, believe is right for the country.
Instead of having a strong alliance and loyalty to party, we should instead have loyalty to our country. If we put aside what our party (or some other special group's) interests, we can get more done. We are all individuals, individuals with great ideas. In order to have all those ideas spread and nurtured, congressmen need to not always conform with their party. The same should be for everyone. Instead of rubber stamping the party doctrine, we need to have open minds, listen to, and discuss people's own individual ideas.
The same goes for us too. Do not simply agree with whatever we have to say. Come up with your own ideas. Voting for a party or even a candidate based on a single or handful of issues is not prudent. Let everyone's ideas and opinions come out into the open. We daresay that with less people conforming to their party ideas, we might come up with some better solutions.
Instead of having a strong alliance and loyalty to party, we should instead have loyalty to our country. If we put aside what our party (or some other special group's) interests, we can get more done. We are all individuals, individuals with great ideas. In order to have all those ideas spread and nurtured, congressmen need to not always conform with their party. The same should be for everyone. Instead of rubber stamping the party doctrine, we need to have open minds, listen to, and discuss people's own individual ideas.
The same goes for us too. Do not simply agree with whatever we have to say. Come up with your own ideas. Voting for a party or even a candidate based on a single or handful of issues is not prudent. Let everyone's ideas and opinions come out into the open. We daresay that with less people conforming to their party ideas, we might come up with some better solutions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)