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.
I'm also sure, that people like Bill Gates, Richard Branson etc...would still be active business players even if their taxes were higher - they'd just make slightly less profit.
IMO- A super-tax would be useful here because it would only click in right at the top, so would not hinder most business men.
but cutting public spending cuts jobs - so what is the good in that?
I thought job creation was the key to a good economy?
Job creation is key. But, relying solely on government spending leads to distorted markets and inflation.
Look at it this way: you can start or grow a campfire with kindling. You don't want to have a campfire made of nothing but kindling, though.
Problem with a "mix" is putting the pieces together. Think about the US, you could have both parties get their way. Dems get their govt programs and GOP gets tax cuts. Then when the bill comes each looks at the other as the problem. So what happens? Nothing, it just continues on.
What "works" elsewhere is multiple parties. You dont benefit from all the parties having their own agendas, you benefit because no party dominates on its own so they must compromise and work together. Until we have such a system and forced cooperation it is hard to imagine how you put a mix of "best ideas" into action.
well Bill Gates, from what I gather, came from a moneyed background so had a great helping hand to get his business up and running in the first place (ie: financial help) - not to mention all the family connections etc.
so do you really think Bill would have got this far had he come from a housing project? - I think that is unlikely to say the least.
So, yes, money can create money, but only if you have it in the first place.
Replace Bill Gates with Howard Johnson. Howard Johnson was broke when he started his business.
I'm also sure, that people like Bill Gates, Richard Branson etc...would still be active business players even if their taxes were higher - they'd just make slightly less profit.
IMO- A super-tax would be useful here because it would only click in right at the top, so would not hinder most business men.
but cutting public spending cuts jobs - so what is the good in that?
I thought job creation was the key to a good economy?
Job creation is key. People like Bill Gates, Richard Branson, and Howard Johnson create jobs. The governments role is to provide an environment where people like those I just mentioned can build a self-sustaining system that employs people while providing value to society. The governments role is not to provide people jobs.
Job creation is key. People like Bill Gates, Richard Branson, and Howard Johnson create jobs. The governments role is to provide an environment where people like those I just mentioned can build a self-sustaining system that employs people while providing value to society. The governments role is not to provide people jobs.
Job creation is key, but those people don't create long term employment opportunities. Only increases in consumption can do that.
Sure, business owners can create jobs, but only in the short term. You start a company, hire some workers. Viola! You've created new jobs. But, if the consumer demand isn't there, eventually your business runs out of funds and those employees are out of work. That's a net change of zero to unemployment.
The government's current role seems to be to prime the pump through tax incentives and loans.
Sure, business owners can create jobs, but only in the short term.
You start a company, hire some workers. Viola! You've created new jobs.
Nope. It's not even that simple.
There are very few NEW jobs doing previously unconsidered work.
Very, very few.
In nearly every instance all you get is a reshuffling of jobs.
The people who used to work for Smith now work for Jones.
In a few instances where the market as a whole is actualy expanding...
then some of the people that *would* have worked for Smith instead work for Jones.
Last edited by MrRational; 08-01-2012 at 11:45 AM..
WHY should I work harder or build my business if the Government is going to take it in taxes?
I don't follow the "workers do something else" line.
Same reason they did when the tax rates were significantly higher. Because even after being taxed at 90%, the top 5% was STILL significantly more wealthy than everyone else.
Job creation is key, but those people don't create long term employment opportunities. Only increases in consumption can do that.
Sure, business owners can create jobs, but only in the short term. You start a company, hire some workers. Viola! You've created new jobs. But, if the consumer demand isn't there, eventually your business runs out of funds and those employees are out of work. That's a net change of zero to unemployment.
The government's current role seems to be to prime the pump through tax incentives and loans.
Businesses play a critical role in identifying consumer demand.
but how can demand be increased if most people have hardly any disposable income; ie:
if the salaries are too low for the general working class, the how can we stimulate and increase demand?
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.
