Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the ones that turn it down create an opportunity for others to step in and make that money.
You nailed it! Thanks for posting that. That's one of the reasons I'd like to see MUCH higher taxes beyond a certain threshhold. HOPEFULLY some of the greedy *ssh*l*s accumulating ridiculuous amounts of wealth would stop accumulating after a reasonble amount has been accumulated. This would open up the doors for some REAL competition and eventually LOWER prices. If one individual or corporation controls any industry or business, there is no meaningful competition, and we the customer suckers...pay for their swimming pools, mansions, and lavish vacations while they buy more and more legislation to protect their monopolies and make it next to impossible for any competition to keep them in line.
Capitalism will have people that will abuse the system at the expense of others.
What I can tell you is that where capitalism exists those countries have become the most successful, have the highest standards of living, have had longer lifespan, better medical systems, less birth deaths, higher caloric intatke, etc.
What I see is a problem is that the more people have the more they want. People tend to be envious in many countries that have wealth. Overall the people that are considered poor in those countries cannot see themselves having less than others. They are ripe by others like you to tell them how bad they have it and they need to revolt. Many of those countries have elected leaders that are good at convincing how bad and greedy the rich people are so they MUST give to others in one form or anther (forced) because they have more than what they need regardless if they earned it by hard work or not.
There are poor people in all countries and capitalists ones are no exception. Many are truly poor due to circumstances beyond their control and a good system can come up with ways to help them out.
Many of the poor I see when I do community service are well fed, have the latest flat screen TV, kids walk around witht he latest iPod or cell phone sytem, etc. Why don't we also look at how we can help them learn how to spend their money wisely?
If you put all the money in let us say the US in one pot and equally distribute it to all citizens, after some length of time we will all end up the same again. The entreprenours will start using their money to make more money, the lazy ones will spend it all, the savers will save it, the suspiciouse ones like you will come up with all kinds of conspiracy theories, etc.
I am aware that there are greedy rich people but they are in numbers no different that greedy middle class people that will milk the system or even cheat the system to have more money at the expense of others. The problem is that the rich are the more visible and easy target to blame.
There are good and honest rich people that do help others but they are lumped together with the bad apples and YOU want force them to give away what they have earned and tell them they do not need to have more.
Who decides how much an individual should have, you? Well, if that is the way to go why not aske everybody how much everybody should have and you can see that opinions are like anuses, everybody has one and we will not come to a conscensus.
I have no problem to some degree to have laws that help protect against abuses but to say people have to much and take it away from them is not the way to go as far as I am concerned.
Lastly, who do you want to have in charge to enforce what you espouse? The government? Does the government have a good record of efficiency to do what you want? In my opinion they do not. They come up with so many laws to "help" the poor and often they actually hurt them more. They are just as human, greedy, and selfish as anybody and to them votes are so important and will come up with programs to get them regardless whether these programs work or not.
You do not trust your money three types of people because they did not work to earn it: Children, thieves, and politicians.
Take care.
We had a system that worked in the 40's thru the 70's for all the people.
The system we have now does not. Since the tax reforms in the 80's, we are seeing our middle class destroyed for the greed of the upper class.
This is undeniable, so what is your solution?
what it would do to medical costs? you want doctors working 20 hours, 7 days a week, instead of hiring more doctors to handle the caseload? your argument makes no sense for a majority of businesses.
I don't understand your conclusions or how your conclusion could have possible been dirived from my post. I want doctor's to work at full capacity - normally that would be 40 hours a week in a 5 day work week. Maybe you have to back up and read the two prior threads from the two prior posters that they reference to.
the healthcare system has nurses, doctors, physician's assistants, etc. taxing higher income wouldn't increase the costs. it would increase job openings. some people wouldn't turn down making 61 cents on the dollar instead of 64 cents, and some would. but the ones that turn it down create an opportunity for others to step in and make that money. any increase in costs would be temporary in nature, until more people went to college to get those degrees. the argument is weak, it defies economic logic.
you're not reducing the supply of doctors by increasing taxes on their income. unless you run out of unemployed people to fill those positions, you'll have people that switch fields to take the demand, or that go to college to be a doctor instead of an investment banker. that's actually a lot of what we could use in this country - less finance degrees and more math/science/health...
You are forgetting something. We are not increasing demand, we are simply reducing supply. Not actually reducing, but wasting supply. So yes, eventually more people go to medical school to become doctors. That's all well and good, but it's canceled out by the negative effect - wasted supply - loss of productivity. A doctor that is doing nothing for half of his productive work time. So let's give an example - a hospital has one thoracic surgeon on staff. Tha surgeon, with the new tax rate, decides he is only going to work a reduced workload. The hospital now has to hire a second thoracic surgeon to work part time. But they don't get two surgeons for the price of one because they are losing economies of scale. It's an additional cost to society.
I think you are assuming that, instead of working less hours, an existing doctor will leave the work force and a new doctor will come in and accept work at a lower salary. But that can't happen because, again, demand has not changed and supply has not really been reduced, but simply "thrown out".
But that's all theoretical. One must back up to the crux of the argument - that increasing tax on the rich will cause some of these highly compensated workers to work less and create a vacancy. I don't think that will happen, so it makes the total theory that the previous poster presented as irrelevant in any event. I think two additional things will happen however, contrary to your post: 1.) These workers will work the same hours, but require a larger salary to compensate for the increased tax rate, in other words they will pass on the tax to their employer. The employer will in turn pass on the tax to the customer, and 2.) It will actually discourage new workers from entering the field (why become a doctor when they can make almost as much money in a field that doesn't take an 8 year very difficult advanced degree and a further 5 years of residency? Become a plumber.
As you can see, in either scenario you choose, it increases health care costs. Again, it's all theoretical, and I don't want this turning into a health care debate. The industry has enough regulations, must of them impacting costs in a negative way, to make any tax effect minor in the total scheme of things.
corporate tax rates were increased, along with the number of loopholes that they could use. the effective rates really didn't go up.
50% is not only the incorrect % (it's 47%), but your claim is false. they pay no "income" tax. they pay plenty of other taxes. maybe the more alarming thing is that 47% of our income-earners make less than the threshold of the first taxable brackeT?
I am all for closing tax loopholes. It's no coincidence that Warren Buffet, the brain behind the "tax the rich" program, has his company not only taking advantage of corporate tax loopholes, but is actually fighting the IRS on the tax liability that they do have to pay. And don't even get me started on the zero tax paying conglomerate GE, who's best buddy is currently in the White House.
For the second point, my claim was not false except for off by 3% points. This topic is on federal income tax, not state and local sales and use taxes. That is another topic. As stated, the first tax bracket threshold was drastically increased for the 1986 tax act, to the benifit of these lower wage workers. Prior to that, a portion of these 47% were paying tax.
[/indent]You nailed it! Thanks for posting that. That's one of the reasons I'd like to see MUCH higher taxes beyond a certain threshhold. HOPEFULLY some of the greedy *ssh*l*s accumulating ridiculuous amounts of wealth would stop accumulating after a reasonble amount has been accumulated. This would open up the doors for some REAL competition and eventually LOWER prices. If one individual or corporation controls any industry or business, there is no meaningful competition, and we the customer suckers...pay for their swimming pools, mansions, and lavish vacations while they buy more and more legislation to protect their monopolies and make it next to impossible for any competition to keep them in line.
Again, I have read many arguments for and against taxing the rich and a progressive tax rate (I am for a progressive tax rate, within reason, by the way). SOme of the reasons for - to reduce income disparity, to balance the budget, to equalize the rate of return, to increase consumption by the poor, to use discretionary income. I don't agree with them all, but they are arguable theories. I have read statistics, financial models, theories, macro and micro economics.
NOT ONE MODEL from those promoting a tax on the rich is arguing that increasing tax on the rich will somehow result in increased market competition and lower prices. Not one. If you find one, let me know.
But I am afraid your post reveals your true intentions and argument - "the greedy *ssh*l*s accumulating ridiculuous amounts of wealth"..."we the customer suckers...pay for their swimming pools, mansions, and lavish vacations". Envy, jelousy, and anger should not be used as a reason to tax.
NOT ONE MODEL from those promoting a tax on the rich is arguing that increasing tax on the rich will somehow result in increased competition and lower prices. Not one. If you find one, let me know.
I am not aware of any either. I'm basing what I wrote on a gut level feeling. Nothing scientific or proven fact about it. Just a hunch that may or may not play out in reality if given a chance. But I will say that trusting my gut, so to speak, has proven to be right more often than not over the course of my 62 years on this rock known as the Earth.
You are forgetting something. We are not increasing demand, we are simply reducing supply. Not actually reducing, but wasting supply. So yes, eventually more people go to medical school to become doctors. That's all well and good, but it's canceled out by the negative effect - wasted supply - loss of productivity. A doctor that is doing nothing for half of his productive work time. So let's give an example - a hospital has one thoracic surgeon on staff. Tha surgeon, with the new tax rate, decides he is only going to work a reduced workload. The hospital now has to hire a second thoracic surgeon to work part time. But they don't get two surgeons for the price of one because they are losing economies of scale. It's an additional cost to society.
I think you are assuming that, instead of working less hours, an existing doctor will leave the work force and a new doctor will come in and accept work at a lower salary. But that can't happen because, again, demand has not changed and supply has not really been reduced, but simply "thrown out".
But that's all theoretical. One must back up to the crux of the argument - that increasing tax on the rich will cause some of these highly compensated workers to work less and create a vacancy. I don't think that will happen, so it makes the total theory that the previous poster presented as irrelevant in any event. I think two additional things will happen however, contrary to your post: 1.) These workers will work the same hours, but require a larger salary to compensate for the increased tax rate, in other words they will pass on the tax to their employer. The employer will in turn pass on the tax to the customer, and 2.) It will actually discourage new workers from entering the field (why become a doctor when they can make almost as much money in a field that doesn't take an 8 year very difficult advanced degree and a further 5 years of residency? Become a plumber.
As you can see, in either scenario you choose, it increases health care costs. Again, it's all theoretical, and I don't want this turning into a health care debate. The industry has enough regulations, must of them impacting costs in a negative way, to make any tax effect minor in the total scheme of things.
how does 1.5 surgeons cost more than 1 surgeon working 60 hours/week? or, if you're referring to "reduced" as less than 40 hours/week, how is 2 part time surgeons more expensive than 1 full time?
the workers may require a larger salary, but it's up to the employers' to decide to pay it, or to higher other workers.
bottom line is supply and demand works both ways. if there is a lot of demand, people will fill in on the supply side. so maybe one doctor won't make $750,000/yr, but 3 doctors will make $250,000 each. Also, it's not like all doctors make a ton of money either. So it might also help get talented individuals into the less desirable jobs instead of the highly profitable dermatologist jobs.
We had a system that worked in the 40's thru the 70's for all the people.
The system we have now does not. Since the tax reforms in the 80's, we are seeing our middle class destroyed for the greed of the upper class.
This is undeniable, so what is your solution?
What system are you talking about?
If you are talking about socialist system I will say this. Socialist systems give the perception of helping the people. It will help alright, for a while. Eventually, it will bust.
Margaret Thatcher said that the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of money.
Look at Social Security. It has grown to an insatiable monster. More and more people want more and more beneifts. Who is going to pay? Those that need to work harder to support it. That is why we are starting to see the results.
Canada? Many people love their socialiced medical system but now they are starting to see the results and it is getting to expensive.
Look at France and some other European countries, oh!, Greece. People are revolting because the government is cutting so many programs because they cannot afford them and now that the people are used to so many freebies they do not want to let them go.
What you are seeing now is the results around the world of people not wanting to let go a the freebies others have been paying for. The upper class greed? Maybe so, but for the sake of argument make a calculation of what would happen if the top let us say 10% taxes are out and see how much money the free ride people would keep getting in benefits.
It is time for ALL to roll their sleeves and start contributing more to the system and suppor themselves.
By the way you go to the 70s. Interesting because Carter handled the part of the 70s and see what happened. He only lasted one term because he screwed it up worse after people like Johnson instituted so many social programs that became and still are overburdening the system. Carter started the Community Reinvestment Act. Have you read on it and what in caused? It took over 20 or about 30 years to see the result in the housing bubble. I have cited this to you before. Have you read on it yet?
You address the greedy, OK. I got it. I address the people that is abusing the system and demanding more and more from others. Take care.
how does 1.5 surgeons cost more than 1 surgeon working 60 hours/week? or, if you're referring to "reduced" as less than 40 hours/week, how is 2 part time surgeons more expensive than 1 full time?
In my example, 2 surgeons working 20 hours a week would replace one surgeon working 40 hours a week. A company would be required to pay two fixed costs instead of one - hiring costs, training costs, some intangible fixed benifits, HR staff to manage it all. You also have 2 employee fixed costs that would have to be allocated, instead of one, via salaries - uniforms, education, transportation. The key is the concept of "economies of scale" - cost will decrease as the usage level of a resource (to a certain point) is increased.
Like I said it's all theoritical anyways, we are assuming increases taxes would create vacancies in highly compensated positions, which I don't see any evidence of at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
