U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-02-2012, 07:19 PM
 
24,497 posts, read 37,616,747 times
Reputation: 12880

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenneth-Kaunda View Post
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?
Majority of the people have disposable income. So that's not really an issue.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-02-2012, 07:39 PM
 
Location: Nesconset, NY
2,202 posts, read 3,807,360 times
Reputation: 2141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenneth-Kaunda View Post
Hi, I have a few questions that I'd like to clarify.

1. If we tax the rich highly (say around 70%) would that help or hinder the country, and why?
There's no definitive answer. What would accompany the 70% tax to discourage the "rich" from changing citizenship? How do you define "rich"? How would you propose to tax those whom are almost "rich" so that the 70% tax on the "rich" doesn't make them poorer than the almost "rich"?

2. Why can't we just create full employment by nationalising many key industries?
You're assuming that a nationalized key industries will hire enough workers to eradicate unemployment. From where would the money come to pay the wages of all these newly employed workers?

3. If increasing taxes curbs job creation, then can't jobs be made some other way?
Increasing taxes doesn't curb job creation. That's just political rhetoric for the ignorant. One would have to have 100% taxes on the profit of each new worker in order for taxes to curb job creation. If you could make $1/day by hiring someone in a high tax environment that's still $1/day profit you wouldn't otherwise have. But if you could fool a bunch of ignorant people to lower taxes so you could make $10/day wouldn't you do so?



I'd like to try to keep this as neutral as possible, and not a war about capitalism v. socialism - thanks.
See blue above
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2012, 11:02 PM
 
5,190 posts, read 4,393,101 times
Reputation: 1103
Quote:
Originally Posted by LIGuy1202 View Post
What would accompany the 70% tax to discourage the "rich" from changing citizenship? How do you define "rich"? How would you propose to tax those whom are almost "rich" so that the 70% tax on the "rich" doesn't make them poorer than the almost "rich"?
The rich could not take their money with them if they wanted to change citizenship - this would become a law.

For the top tax rate, it would only kick in over a certain income - so a rich person would never be made poorer than an 'almost rich'.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2012, 11:21 PM
 
24,497 posts, read 37,616,747 times
Reputation: 12880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenneth-Kaunda View Post
The rich could not take their money with them if they wanted to change citizenship - this would become a law.

For the top tax rate, it would only kick in over a certain income - so a rich person would never be made poorer than an 'almost rich'.
So you're telling people that they'll be taxed at 70% and then with the remaining 30%, control what they can do with it? Those laws will kill opportunity and freedom.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2012, 02:22 AM
 
5,190 posts, read 4,393,101 times
Reputation: 1103
They can leave the country if they like (with their 30%), but then someone else will take over the business.

what is so wrong with that - because they will still have freedom, and the nation will still benefit from the company (which cannot be off-shored)

However, it is protection for the nation in that, the owner cannot just make a huge profit and then take the money and run.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2012, 11:13 AM
 
8,151 posts, read 4,626,798 times
Reputation: 7539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenneth-Kaunda View Post
Hi, I have a few questions that I'd like to clarify.

1. If we tax the rich highly (say around 70%) would that help or hinder the country, and why?

2. Why can't we just create full employment by nationalising many key industries?

3. If increasing taxes curbs job creation, then can't jobs be made some other way?



I'd like to try to keep this as neutral as possible, and not a war about capitalism v. socialism - thanks.
1) Depends on what the tax dollars are used for. If they're used for public works projects (ie: when we built the highways) they're beneficial. Tax rates of that level have existed here, and in some ways we were more prosperous.

2) You don't want full employment. You'll always want 4-5% to keep the balance.

3) Jobs will be increased when the market allows for it. If a business needs to expand, it'll expand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
Okay, so who is better at having capital to invest in future business and industries?
Who said the government is the next choice?

Trickle down, as a whole, has been a failure. It's siphoned too much out of the rest of the classes, and concentrated it at the top. What was supposed to trickle down, doesn't trickle down fast enough. There is too much at the top, for the top to spend fast enough. We now have a squeeze on the middle class, who make up consumer spending for the country and keep it going, not the upper class.

Last edited by LordSquidworth; 08-03-2012 at 12:14 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2012, 01:41 PM
 
5,631 posts, read 9,934,224 times
Reputation: 4989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenneth-Kaunda View Post
They can leave the country if they like (with their 30%), but then someone else will take over the business.

what is so wrong with that - because they will still have freedom, and the nation will still benefit from the company (which cannot be off-shored)

However, it is protection for the nation in that, the owner cannot just make a huge profit and then take the money and run.
Good luck seizing an operating business. Most business now is intellectual property, the owners would take it with them to another country. In any case it would be almost impossible to take a person's assets in such a setup. To begin with anyone facing a high tax rate would make sure as much of it as possible was set up outside the country and keep its income and cash out of the high taxed country.

Basically what you are suggesting is to make a country's currency non-convertible and putting up a fence around it financially. You think that would be a productive nation in today's world economy? China is trying to a modest degree, but they are in spot where they have zero need for foreign exchange due to their balance of trade. It works for a period of time, but almost every nation which has had a positive balance of trade eventually turns negative. Positive wage differentials start to narrow and the strength in the local currency makes the population and the government more interested in using its productivity towards buying foreign products. When China gets close to it you will see currency restrictions removed and the country will be much more interested in importing products.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2012, 09:25 PM
 
5,190 posts, read 4,393,101 times
Reputation: 1103
Ok, well in the case of China, why can't they just make all their own products?

if they like a foreign car for example, just buy one unit and then copy the design.

I believe this happens regularly in Korea already.

these days, why do we even need to buy foreign products when we have the technology to make it at home, and cheaper labor (re: China)?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2012, 09:42 PM
 
28,027 posts, read 36,166,490 times
Reputation: 4116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willy702 View Post
Good luck seizing an operating business. Most business now is intellectual property, the owners would take it with them to another country. In any case it would be almost impossible to take a person's assets in such a setup. To begin with anyone facing a high tax rate would make sure as much of it as possible was set up outside the country and keep its income and cash out of the high taxed country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenneth-Kaunda View Post
Ok, well in the case of China, why can't they just make all their own products?

if they like a foreign car for example, just buy one unit and then copy the design.

I believe this happens regularly in Korea already.

these days, why do we even need to buy foreign products when we have the technology to make it at home, and cheaper labor (re: China)?
Quote:
Jul 26, 2012

The researchers identified 20 victims in all -- many of them organizations with secrets that could give China an edge as it strives to become the world’s largest economy. The targets included lawyers pursuing trade claims against the country’s exporters and an energy company preparing to drill in waters China claims as its own.

“What the general public hears about -- stolen credit card numbers, somebody hacked LinkedIn (LNKD) -- that’s the tip of the iceberg, the unclassified stuff,” said Shawn Henry, former executive assistant director of the FBI in charge of the agency’s cyber division until leaving earlier this year. “I’ve been circling the iceberg in a submarine. This is the biggest vacuuming up of U.S. proprietary data that we’ve ever seen. It’s a machine.”
Hackers Linked to China

Quote:
May 7, 2012

The U.S. and Chinese militaries should work as equals and avoid the “stereotype” of being confrontational superpowers, Chinese General Liang Guanglie said on his first visit to Washington as defense minister.
Chinese General Downplays China

Quote:
Dec 14, 2011

The hackers’ interest in companies as small as Salt Lake City-based iBahn illustrates the breadth of China’s spying against firms in the U.S. and elsewhere. The networks of at least 760 companies, research universities, Internet service providers and government agencies were hit over the last decade by the same elite group of China-based cyber spies. The companies, including firms such as Research in Motion Ltd. (RIM) and Boston Scientific Corp., range from some of the largest corporations to niche innovators in sectors like aerospace, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, according to intelligence data obtained by Bloomberg News.
China-Based Hacking of 760 Companies Shows Cyber Cold War - Bloomberg
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2012, 11:19 PM
 
Location: NJ/NY
15,576 posts, read 12,134,124 times
Reputation: 11165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenneth-Kaunda View Post
They can leave the country if they like (with their 30%), but then someone else will take over the business.

what is so wrong with that - because they will still have freedom, and the nation will still benefit from the company (which cannot be off-shored)

However, it is protection for the nation in that, the owner cannot just make a huge profit and then take the money and run.
I dont know that you understand the meaning of freedom, at least as it is written in our laws. A major building block of freedom is property rights. Without property rights, there is no freedom. On occasion, the government confiscates the property of law abiding individuals for "the better good". HOWEVER, when they do this, the law is very clear that they have to pay current market value for that property.

I know you started this thread as a purely economic and non political thread. Unfortunately, on this subject I dont think you can separate the two. Freedom (liberty) and democracy are often at odds with one another. Ben Franklin once said "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch."

He and the other founders realized that there was a delicate balance to be maintained, so while they gave us a democracy (democratic republic), they also gave us a constitution. The constitution was written to protect the individual from the tyranny of the mob. Many of the things you suggest may be better for the majority, but you cant violate people's individual rights just because someone decides it is better for the majority.

Last edited by AnesthesiaMD; 08-04-2012 at 11:31 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:52 AM.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top