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.
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?
1. That kind of taxation would only affect income (at around 70%). The dynamics of the economy would not change for decades since existing wealth in the hands of the top 1 or 2% would not change and the gap between the poor and rich (both subjective terms) in the US is so wide right now, the only way to make things "fair" in the world view of socialists would have to involve actual confiscation of existing wealth at a rate of 70%.
2. Nationalising many key industries in an attempt to create full employment would have adverse affects on the entire economy that would be far worse than even a 20% unemployment rate within the parameters of what is left of a free society.
3. Yeah, have the federal government pay anyone that makes under $25k a year and has a net worth under $5k rob people that have been determined to have too much money. Whatever. . .
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. Who are the rich? I would rather tax them at a lower rate but drop loopholes. Not politically likely. Yes, tax rates did go up that high during the 1950's but few paid that much.
2. We tried that with Chrysler, GM and Conrail. Employment actually dropped.
3. World War II was successfully eliminated unemployment, but actually preparing for war without fighting one is also effective.
and here I mean any kind of income tax -ie: state + federal.
I paid 0% tax when I was a dependent in high school. I got my full amount of taxes paid in my return. I made almost all of my money back again when I was in college.
4) Money is created through lending. That is what generates "wealth" so to speak. The creation of a successful business is just a transfer of wealth from its customers to the businesses employees. Obviously in differing amounts depending upon who is receiving the most money from the business. Owners can get quite wealthy or they can lose their shirt on such ventures. Our economy relies heavily on two things:
1) that people need and want money to be lended to them
2) that more people exist to create, produce, and consume.
1. If we tax the rich highly (say around 70%) would that help or hinder the country, and why?
Tax rates that high would incentivize tax evasion. It simply wouldn't be worth the trouble. That doesn't mean taxing the very high income earners ($1m+) higher than we do now would necessarily curb investment or spike tax evasion. Tax rates are at historical lows.
Ususally, how heavily one should be taxed doesn't center on how to maximize tax revenue, but instead of moral stances of what is and is not "fair."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenneth-Kaunda
2. Why can't we just create full employment by nationalising many key industries?
"Full" employment isn't possible. Included in unemployment are individuals who voluntarily left jobs.
No such thing as a free lunch. Forcing high employment rates/low u-rates beyond "normal" always has consequences, namely higher inflation.
True that full employment is like a perfect circle; the goal that can never be reached. There are always going to be some who are looking for the perfect job but can afford to be out for a while. Acting is a good example. While most actors/actresses work menial jobs between calls there are a few who can sit it out. Note: unemployment ignores those who are not actually looking for work.
True that full employment is like a perfect circle; the goal that can never be reached. There are always going to be some who are looking for the perfect job but can afford to be out for a while. Acting is a good example. While most actors/actresses work menial jobs between calls there are a few who can sit it out. Note: unemployment ignores those who are not actually looking for work.
4. Does opening a new, small business actually create wealth?
Let's say I decide to open a sandwich shop and employ 10 people at $10/hour (a nice sum to work with).
How does this actually generate wealth, and isn't it just redistribution of wealth that is occurring here?
How does this redistribute wealth?
You line of questioning is odd - is this your homework or something?
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.
