You Cannot Win An Election With Strong Disapprovals Like This

[LastVoter]

In this scenario I have no preference either way and with both I'd be fine.  I have no problems with PPP

Skip the details and get to the point.  What is your point, you are clearly trying to make one.  Either make your point or I'm done with you.  We've been going over back and forth all day and I just want to hear your point.

What is it?

So you wouldn't want the government to save the extra $10k?

And what do you mean by PPP?

Public Private Partnerships

In Dallas one of the commuter rail lines that has been proposed has had an alternative funding solution presented as a PPP because the transit agency doesn't have the funds via taxes alone to construct it.  If that ever moves forward I would presume that at least some people would have some percentage of the cost of their employment borne by the tax payers and some by whatever private entity they go with.  I don't even know if there is a full proposal.  However DART (the transit authority for most of Dallas County) simply doesn't have the money to move forward without some sort of external money source such as a grant from the federal government or as part of a PPP.

If there are no private sources of money - the government foots the entire bill
If the government can't afford it alone - go with the private source along with the the government
If neither can afford it and it is a critical project then it would probably go on the national debt
If the private company can afford it and if the government can then I really have no preference, if I were a Representative I would vote yes on both in the hope that at least one gets passed



Now the point must exist.  

I see usually when I see PPP I think Purchasing Power Parity.

But why would you have no preference between both options if the latter saves tax payer money to be spent on something else? Do you just not care if government money is wasted when it doesn't have to be? This is kind of a big sticking point before I move on.

I am with you on this debate, Wonkish. But I would add this concise fact that is so often overlooked among our friends on the left: In order for the government to give anybody anything, the government must take something from somebody (if they simply "print money" to "pay," they are still taking something from somebodies: lost purchasing power via inflation). In other words, all government spending is EVENTUALLY paid for by taxation on market activities and/or inflation upon society at large.

Okay, I give you the play by play.

The question of 100% of government expenditure for a job
vs.
80% gov. and 20% by a private investor
Is a no brainer for most sane people. Why waste the extra 20% when someone else is willing to fork it in.


So how about 80% and 20% vs. 50% and 50%
Same why waste the other 30% of expenditure when someone else is willing to kick in the other 30%

So how about 20% from the government and 80% by the private investor. Yet again the same is true.

How about even 10% from the government and 90% by the private investor. Again yet again the same is true why waste any more government money when he's willing to fund 90% of the project.

Why pay $50k in government expenditure to create a new job when you could create a job for only $5k in expenditure? You wouldn't. And the person that agrees to that simple stream of thought would have just agreed by default that tax cuts are a much more efficient way to create jobs than government expenditure is. You get more bang for your buck.

Meanwhile, why make 1 owner of 1 construction company much more wealthy when you decide to build that road, when you can make all job creators just marginally more wealthy? Seems a lot more fair to do the latter route. You don't pick winners and losers. And that is speaking from someone that knows wealthy folks that don't care what % taxes they pay because they are the beneficiary of government deals that have made them very wealthy as a consequence. Also since the private sector is better at delegating work to be done that generates a higher return on overall society then why wouldn't you want them to employ the next several hundred employees, than having the a central planner do it who has no idea what is the next most demanded project.

FTFY

[LastVoter]

FTFY

??

And look the context is that when a business makes several million dollars off a government deal they know they get more of those government deals if taxes rise.

I can assure that other business owners do care about what taxes they pay. I work in a smaller firm that would hire at least a couple more analysts if tax rates were slashed another 10%. And those people that would have a job if that were to happen, but will never know what they are missing at our firm...do care if that effects them being able to get work.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=FTFY
Decreasing taxes won't increase hiring in almost all circumstances. If you were to attach strings to them, the effectiveness would be the same as if you just created government jobs.

Btw Obama's stimulus created jobs, but a lot less efficiently than expected. Bush's tax cuts... Didn't create a single job.

[LastVoter]

FTFY

??

And look the context is that when a business makes several million dollars off a government deal they know they get more of those government deals if taxes rise.

I can assure that other business owners do care about what taxes they pay. I work in a smaller firm that would hire at least a couple more analysts if tax rates were slashed another 10%. And those people that would have a job if that were to happen, but will never know what they are missing at our firm...do care if that effects them being able to get work.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=FTFY
Decreasing taxes won't increase hiring in almost all circumstances. If you were to attach strings to them, the effectiveness would be the same as if you just created government jobs.

Btw Obama's stimulus created jobs, but a lot less efficiently than expected. Bush's tax cuts... Didn't create a single job.

Please explain to me the rationale about how tax cuts don't create any jobs?

The main premise is that no business is going to hire workers unless they will pay for themselves. Tax cut or not it will not change the bottom line(especially since a taxes are based of profit)
I'll make a distinction between buisness and corporate taxes

For Personal taxes for people with businesses:
They have nothing to do with their business.  Most rich people already save a part of their income, and a tax cut will just mean that they will be saving more money. That won't create jobs. Only poor will spend their tax cuts.
For Corporate taxes
I don't think I even need to argue this point, but it's the bottom line. Yes corporations go overseas, but most of them fill in a niche in their own country where they will not be able to keep functioning in another country because the products are usually region specific for most. Labor costs and infrastructure play a lot bigger role in outsourcing anyway(this is why manufacturing got moved to banana republics that had really basic needed infrastructure).
I am sure somebody could argue my point a lot better, I need to go to bed soon.