8 richest own as much as half of the World's population. Oxfam

[oldbadger]

.............the question: what would you do to make your country a better place (economically speaking).

The above sent to another........
I'm English. Well, UK.
I would stop my country from playing at International war games, spend some of the money on better home defence, costguard, police services etc, and put the rest into our National Health Service.
I would enhance our Inland Revenue Service and ensure that everybody paid the correct taxes, dues and fees. I would use the £billions produced to enhance our schools, universities, transport and social services.

?

 

[metis]

Yes.
But, try this. This came from the CEO of one of the most successful Direct Sales Companies in the UK, circa 1978.

There are three reasons why this company exists.
1. It exists to supply a good service and products to our customers. Without our customers it would die.
2. It exists to supply good livings to all our employees and contractors. Without good employees and contractors we would die.
3. It exists to supply fair returns to our shareholders. Without our shareholders we would die.

What goes round, comes back round.

I agree fully with the above as there are numerous factors that are involved, and I have not denied that. My issue is that providing hefty tax breaks for the wealthy simply does not directly translate into the creation of more businesses and jobs, largely because, if the anticipated demand is there, investors from multiple sources will invest; and if not, they won't. It's what the law of supply and demand has well established over centuries.

We also must remember that if some are getting tax breaks that this means that others are going to have to pay more in taxes to foot the bills. If not, then cuts would have to be made, but these cuts may have some negative effects.

 

[oldbadger]

I agree fully with the above as there are numerous factors that are involved, and I have not denied that. My issue is that providing hefty tax breaks for the wealthy simply does not directly translate into the creation of more businesses and jobs, largely because, if the anticipated demand is there, investors from multiple sources will invest; and if not, they won't. It's what the law of supply and demand has well established over centuries.

We also must remember that if some are getting tax breaks that this means that others are going to have to pay more in taxes to foot the bills. If not, then cuts would have to be made, but these cuts may have some negative effects.

Yes.
To all of the above.
We don't need to make the rich richer.
We simply need to support new young businesses that do need funding.
And we need to prepare the young for this strange new world that's coming, just round the corner.
I certainly wouldn't know how to survive in it.

 

[Shad]

Mere demand is lifeblood to most companies.

Sure but that is not my point. Mere demand does not necessitate new jobs nor supply the majority of the funding up front.

 

[Shad]

1 - you're changing the topic

No I didn't. I clarified what I had said. I pointed out this man has horrible idea a lot of economist laugh at. His $15 was shotdown in his home state as it makes grand claims with no knowledge.

2 - you don't know what's "in my ear"

Considering you never comments on his lies I assumed this.

3 - i've been a business owner - what he says about hiring is absolutely true

What type of business and what services or products were offered. Did the consumer provide you with the loans to setup shop? Nope. Did the consumer cover your investments? No.

So - for the sake of discussion - let's say that we should keep taxes on the rich low, as they have been for decades - when will these jobs start getting created?

The taxes on the rich have been higher in most nations than what the middle and low class are taxed. Again I did not agree with the Republican slogan nor the consumer slogan.

When will income inequality start decreasing?

Why is this a problem? If you have a horrible job that is not the problem of the rich, it is your problem (hypothetical you).

We've given this low-taxes-for-the-rich approach decades now, and it doesn't seem to be working. What do you the anonymous economists recommend instead? More of the same?

I argue against taxing the rich merely because they are rich and can afford it slogans

Do you contest the idea that income inequality is rising?

Income inequality has always existed. Again why it is my problem?

 

[metis]

Mere demand does not necessitate new jobs nor supply the majority of the funding up front.

Investment money will flow in direction of where the demand is regardless as to where it comes from. So much of our investment money spent here comes from foreign sources, for example. All of our major beer bottlers are foreign owned. Chrysler is owned by Fiat. Electrolux is Swedish owned. On and on and ....

 

[Shad]

Investment money will flow in direction of where the demand is regardless as to where it comes from.

Sure but the source does matter. Those sources are not dominated by the middle-class.

[So much of our investment money spent here comes from foreign sources, for example. All of our major beer bottlers are foreign owned. Chrysler is owned by Fiat. Electrolux is Swedish owned. On and on and ....

Which are capital investors not the middle-class.

 

[metis]

Sure but the source does matter. Those sources are not dominated by the middle-class.

But that's where most of the demand comes from, and that's the single largest driving force. Our thriving middle class is why we still attract more investment money by far than any other country.

 

[icehorse]

I argue against taxing the rich merely because they are rich and can afford it slogans.

- and then -

Income inequality has always existed. Again why it is my problem?

I fear you're putting words in my mouth here. I believe the goal should be a healthy economy and a large, strong, secure, healthy middle class. Can we take that as self-evident or are we headed towards some sort of moral relativist endpoint. If neither of those, then can you share your baseline assumptions about what would constitute a healthy economy?

 

[icehorse]

What type of business and what services or products were offered. Did the consumer provide you with the loans to setup shop? Nope. Did the consumer cover your investments? No.

This is probably a tangent, but the business was a software consultancy, and to some degree I would say that our clients - when they signed big services agreements with us - were taking on some risk. And I guarantee you, we ran our business with as few employees as we could get away with. We were "job creators" only grudgingly.

 

[Shad]

I fear you're putting words in my mouth here. I believe the goal should be a healthy economy and a large, strong, secure, healthy middle class. Can we take that as self-evident or are we headed towards some sort of moral relativist endpoint. If neither of those, then can you share your baseline assumptions about what would constitute a healthy economy?

Feeding the middle-class social programs is merely placing the class "health" on the back of others.

I believe a primary concern is education. No child left behind needs to be scrapped. It had slowed the pace and regressed the curriculum of public schools. It also looks down upon exceptional students as something to be frowned upon, like rocking the mediocre boat. I myself had to argue with my own district's board for advance classes for 3 years straight and to challenge the final exam when I felt the system was holding me back. I passed grade 9 in 2 months before moving back to a private school. I was raised in a single mother home who made 40k a year (accountant) so its not like I was rich. When I was younger classes which are now offered in university were available in high school. The current system is adding years to university which increases student debut and chances of defaulting. I think a reform of the old apprenticeship programs with employers combined with the education system certification can enable student with trade skills to acquire certification outside of classes. A number of my friends had mechanical or computers skills that was far beyond entry level classes but couldn't challenge the first year to demonstrate their knowledge. Enabling employers to take a risk if they see fits can help a lot of people in my opinion. A basic fact people want to ignore is not everyone is suitable for university but are completely capable to take part in the workforce in a way that they can excel in their choice of work.

 

[Shad]

This is probably a tangent, but the business was a software consultancy, and to some degree I would say that our clients - when they signed big services agreements with us - were taking on some risk. And I guarantee you, we ran our business with as few employees as we could get away with. We were "job creators" only grudgingly.

I completely understand trying to maintain a profit margin using as few employees as possible. However without knowing what requirements you had for your employees makes it difficult to comment beyond a generalized point.

 

[Shad]

But that's where most of the demand comes from, and that's the single largest driving force. Our thriving middle class is why we still attract more investment money by far than any other country.

I never argued against this. I argued that the middle-class itself is a primary job creators. China has next to no middle-class comparable to America yet has been absorbing jobs from the developed world for decades.