Ok, I gotta go lift wieghts right now. I will be back. We will see how this thread goes.Originally Posted by shadowsworn
Reputation: 10
Ok, I gotta go lift wieghts right now. I will be back. We will see how this thread goes.
Reputation: 677
It doesn't create venue though.
It adds nothing to the money it gets, it just reroutes it to places where it shouldn't be.
You need to get a clear view of one thing;
In all politics, there is nothing but the battle of interest groups, be it locally, national, or global.
The points of interests are economic goals.
If you would take a look at the budgeting of the US government, you would wonder how this enormous masses of money couldn't actually be more useful to everyone in just about anyone else's hands.
Reputation: 75
Such as healthcare, roads, that sort of thing?
Of course. But the evils of government (waste), are by far and away mitigated by the good a well run government provides. Just because a rich man has 1,000,000,000 dollars, doesn't mean that he's going to give it to the poor. The government has to, in the form of education subsidies and medicare.
Reputation: 12
i dont think it vanish's theres just better places for it.We should pay taxes and rich people should pay more, but you cant tax them any more at this point thats not gonna solve the solution.Yea rich people dont buy the best stuff but that money ussualy gets taxed in the process.unless your buying from other countries.
Reputation: 54
Economists have said that raising taxes during a recession is a bad idea.
Reputation: 268
I could see how raising taxes on the poor would be bad.
If you ask me, the best ways that the government could deal with this would be:
a) provide more support for small businesses.
b) put more restrictions on companies' ability to fire low level workers, and force them to fire more of the overpaid underworked management/staff (same goes for the government. They employ so many useless people it's not even funny)
Reputation: 75
Ah, but it could be spent in alot better ways. Taxing the rich won't solve the problem on it's own, you're right. We need to create a better environment for business. That's why everyone needs to be taxed more, and business needs to be taxed less.
What do you think will happen if we have a corporation, and it's members want more pay, over the reasonable amount they're already getting. If every dollar they take out of the company immediately turns to 50 cents, what do you think they're going to do. Instead of taking the money for themselves, they'll keep it in the company. The company will be able to upgrade it's facilities, hire those new workers they've been needing, and keep things running smoother than it could without this money, hypothetically. The company benefits, and it's employees do too, from improved working conditions. And because corporate taxes are lower, the company makes money and produces higher quality products at a lower price. Everybody wins. Except those who wanted to take out the money in the first place.
Reputation: 677
Where they create venue they are not payed out of the tax pot.
There they are used to get money for different agendas.
Reputation: 12
well that last 2 ideas sound alright.
But you want to see employment rate go up companies need to stop drug testing over every little job.
Reputation: 677
They for example tax companies for their waste, but don't really use the money to deal with the waste, but budget it into public transportation.
And the issue you want to avoid is to tax the rich people, because a parted society is very problematic.
A strong upper middle and high achievers class is necessary for fluctuation between the enterprising and the workers.
It creates a strong conflict;
See the example of the engineer before;
If you don't have a "productive elite" in know-how, in services, basically in everything besides fiscal, you will open up huge social inequalities and make it impossible for people to traverse between levels of wealth.
Reputation: 75
You are right, as I stated before, that there are issues that the government doesn't deal with, but again, this is mitigated by the fact that they're the only ones who balance wealth.
A higher tax rate won't divide the United States, it'll strengthen it. The less income disparity there is the more social mobility and generally the happier people are. If there's more tax, the United States will have a happier, more diverse, more educated and larger workforce.
Oh. I know. I just propose to expand the elite, instead of separating it from the rest of society.
Reputation: 51
the rich wont even care
Reputation: 677
By taxing employees?
They are all in the same pot.
Taxing them, means stoping them from saving up, stopping them from saving up will cut the next gens. chances in education, stop spending and make them loose interest in taking up risks, such as entrepreneurship or investment. The turnout is a passive and pessimistic swing in society.
You exchange that for funding snow clearance on some 100 km trail into nowhere, because of a 100 soul community, where only old people and people who can't find a job live; No wonder, it's in the ****ing nowhere.
There is no point in developing regions that are worthless for everyone.
There is no point funding a public library to fill a quota even if no one ever turns up to rent out books there.
Things like that are a luxury, if people are so into all the crisis talk nowadays, they should realize that this is what their money goes into if you give it to the state;
Luxuries for political interest groups.
The investors, and the employers as they generally do not at all feel the income tax, just will live on happily ever after.
Reputation: 75
I'm not talking about luxuries, or ludicrous snow clearing projects. I'm talking about funding education and subsidizing university tuition and providing low/no-interest student loans, so that the workforce is more educated. Funding health care, so that the workforce is healthy. I propose higher income taxes, but lower corporate taxes. With corporate taxes lower, they'll either a), be getting paid more, or b) buying products that cost less, but either way, they'll still have around the same amount of money, (maybe a little lower, but that just means the government will have more funds), except that priorities will change.
If they fund health care and lower the financial bars of admission to universities, we'll be training far more engineers, scientists and doctors. That's what I mean about expanding the elite.
Reputation: 677
Yes, that are the responsibilities that the gov should take care of.
The question at hand is, will it do it and will it do it in a good way.
To a bigger extent it doesn't.
Posting Permissions
