The downside of saving

  • Follow Editorials

Americans have, for decades, needed to save more.

We picked an awful time to finally do it.

Understandable fear of the economy, tight credit and uncertainty about having a job have all led Americans to save more: about 2.9 percent, as a percentage of after-tax income, in the final quarter of 2008. That's about three times what we were putting away a year before.

Economists have been warning us for years that Americans were spending too much and saving too little, especially when you consider the now ongoing retirement of the massive baby-boom generation.

But the irony is, the saving is hurting the economy. When there's more being hoarded, there's less being spent. And that means less money to hire people and produce goods and services.

Consumer spending amounts to about 70 percent of the U.S. economy -- and it has become quite obvious that the American consumer is key to the global economy, as people around the world get pneumonia from the American consumer's cold.

It's a vicious spiral downward.

All the more reason for Washington to cut, cut cut.

The massive "stimulus" bill wending its way through Congress won't stimulate much except for government borrowing and spending.

What Washington needs to do is to cut spending, to lower taxes and to allow Americans to keep more of their own money -- money that could then be circulated into the economy.

Rather than borrow nearly $1 trillion to dole out in dubious government spending -- and leave our progeny with the tab -- Congress should quickly pass an income tax moratorium of, say, six months.

That money would immediately be put to work in the economy, because Americans would get a raise in their paychecks overnight.

It would be more of a stimulus, and its effects would attach much more quickly than the massive government spending now being proposed.

But even that's not enough. Long-term, taxes must be cut permanently, and the size of government forever reduced.

Last year, average corporate tax rates in the United States stayed the same -- but rates fell in other countries. And now our corporate tax rates are 50 percent higher than the international average, crippling America's ability to compete and to have the kind of good-paying jobs that fill government coffers and family budgets.

"People are not saving; they are building financial bomb shelters," says one financial pro.

If Americans are finally going to save more over the long term, which they should, the onus is on government to take less money out of the economy and leave more of it in our pockets.

Regulation is fine, even necessary, if done at a minimum. But when it comes to spending and saving, the best thing the government can do is to butt out.

Comments

patriciathomas

The redistribution of wealth programs promoted by collateral free loans (insured by the tax payer through Fannie, Freddie, and FHA) led to the collapse of the American economy and the packaging of the worthless loans as viable investments led to the collapse of the world market. If the government cuts taxes and spending, how will they redistribute the wealth? All that will do is allow taxpayers to keep their money and invest it where they think it should go. No vote bought with that idea. The National Socialist Dem Party will never consider the idea in this editorial and if they did, Herr Obama would veto it the second it hit his desk. Stand by for things to get much, much worse. (Thanks government schools)

Riverman1

They will be coming to get your hidden gold. No one will escape this socialist redistribution. The Democrat Senator from Louisiana, Mary Landrieu, said yesterday on CNBC she wants to stop corporarte theft on income taxes. What the heck, this is black helicopter stuff. If you know of theft, please report it. If a tax deduction is not a good thing, tell your Democrat Congress and administration. Keynes said those who saved were the enemy. Obama reads that stuff and will try to come up with a way to take savings from the savers.

patriciathomas

They came up with a way Riverman1, they sold investment portfolios the bogus loan packages that were backed by the taxpayer. As slick a case of reverse double dipping as has ever been perpetrated. Our congress has betrayed us and is now doing it again to make up for the betrayal.

GGpap

Save or spend? Don't you hear the fife and drums in the background? Where are the Green Mountain boys when America needs them? Blaming left or right, bankers or lawyers, cooks and bakers, or Indian chiefs just won't solve a da@@ thing anymore (never did anyhow). This country has been in free fall ever since Eisenhower sent the first American military "advisors" into Vietnam in the 50's. Whoa! Not because he was a Republican; but, just because. He@@ I voted for Ike, and I also voted for Jimmy; but from Ike to Carter, nothing has really changed: FREE FALL! GGpap

Fishboy

Give us freedom from payroll taxes for one year and you'll see what this economy can do. Shrink our government, grow our economy.

willistontownsc

Did anyone hear that we WASTED yet another $32,000,000.00 in Iraq? That's right, WASTED. Also, we need to trim some other stuff out of the stimulus package. And disallow ANY additions by either side.

willistontownsc

As far as an income tax freeze goes, it won't amount to much of an increase, unless you are a multi-millionaire. A person getting a $490 gross paycheck (after income taxes and before other deductions) will only see an increase of $10.00 on their paychecks. So, that would be no good.

I4PUTT

Willis, as usual, you're wrong. On aa weekly pay of $490 your federal tax would be about $80 per week using the current IRS Federal Tax Withholding calculator. That's about an 18% salary increase. If we were only concerned about $10 per week in Federal Income tax, I'm sure every one would gladly mail in their $520.00 per year and ask for nothing in return. I'm not even including State or local income with holdings.

patriciathomas

You sure have all of the knowledge and understanding of a Dem voter, willi.

I4PUTT

Putting all the opinions about with holding aside, This suggestion makes sense. Therefore it will never be attractive to the majority in congress. The Pelozi, Reed, FRanks led congress only cares about taking your money. They have no thoughts about giving any of it back to tax payers. Damon Wayans got it right. Mo money, mo money, mo money! Caroline Kennedy 011, You know!

overburdened_taxpayer

willis still thinks that America could not function without unions because "they protect the worker so well". LOL what a crock. "And so the reign of the Anit-Christ (Obama) begins....."

soldout

We have over-expanded the economy through not living within our means and now we pay the price. The government is just doing what the individual has done and for the same reasons. Now some are learning the lesson and living below their means and saving which will create a large slow-down but it is necessary.

Best inidvidual protection is take a Dave Ramsey course, become a cheerful giver and market time investments. "If you want to work when you are old do buy and hold."

dashiel

Passive aggressives unite!

johnsmith

I4, remember, willi only ever paid 2% in income tax, and hasn't paid any tax at all, by his own admission. My income tax comes to over $400 per month; believe me, it would be a considerable raise to let me off the hook for a few months.

NotyourDadsBuick

So the editorial blames the taxpayer for saving money? That's what I'm reading. And the more the taxpayer has to save these days, the more he/she will in fact save. People ain't in a spending mood these days. With good reason.

Online Database by Caspio
Click here to load this Caspio Online Database.
Loading...