BF2S Forums Have you ever got a job from a poor person?

Harmor wrote:

I find the current economy doing pretty well, minus the sub-prime mortgages part, but other than that its pretty good.

Unlike the late 1990s where we had a boon based on the dot-coms, this boon seems to have been rallied by the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.  Those tax cuts lowered the top rates and thus gave a 'tax cut to the rich' and gave us a 95.6% employment rate.

Yet during that time revenues to the government have increased faster than ever in modern history.  Granted the Republican congress, who historially has been fiscially responsible, actually spent it faster than it came in. 

A Keyneian economist would probably note that all the expenditures by the government right now (alot of pork-barrel spending, war spending, entitlement spending), futher stimulates the economy.


So my question is, why raise taxes if it only slows the economy, reduces revenue to the government, and increases unemployment?

Are all those issues less important that the notion of 'sticking it to the rich'?


EDIT: Forgot to mention that this boon is also being helped by the devaluing of the U.S. dollar - manufacturing is actually doing well now.

Each situation has to be taken on its own merits. A healthy society is one where there is a relatively small gap between rich and poor (one that is big enough to maintain growth though). It's all about balance. Life isn't all about money. A tax cut too far and you leave many who are struggling destitute and a society on the point of pulling itself apart. Tax cuts don't automatically mean more jobs by default - you're being far too simplistic. Lower taxes too much and inflation runs amok.

When the Russian economy was restructured to mimic Americas society collapsed, for instance. You need only look at Latin America for further examples of car crash societies based around the actions you are touting as the guaranteed 'way forward'.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-05-05 11:43:50)

herrr_smity wrote:

Have you ever got a job from a poor person

that's a stupid question its like asking if a wealthy person makes the goods that the company sells, or maintains the infrastructure of society

Perhaps you mean that a rich person has enough capital to buy the infrastructure (machines, computers, software, etc...), to hire someone with the skills to use them to make money?

A poor person won't have the capital...

Harmor wrote:

How so?  We have a healthy economy, but the gap between the rich and poor continues to grow.  Do you mean the numbers of people in each demographic?  For example we have a much larger percentage of our population that are millionares compared to other countries...is that what you mean?

Healthy for you maybe because you're well off perchance? The problem here is the self-centred approach to life. You can do well for yourself, do better than many others, but a decent human being will feel bad for those being left behind because of the fact that the capitalist system is imperfect. More millionaires != better society. For me a better society would be one where everyone is housed, well fed and healthy and the middle class is as large as is feasibly possible. I'll take thousands of thousandaires over a tens of millionaires anyday.

Harmor wrote:

I don't understand this point.  So if a government lowers taxes and the people have more disposable income it will tare the society apart?  If the government does not have enough money to protect and maintain order I can see your point.

Public services cost money. Roads. Police. Hospitals. Fire brigades. Education. Infrastructure. Defence. People who can't get on the employment ladder for reasons outside of their own control, those who have fallen ill and can't work, those who can't find employment through unfortunate circumstance (locating somewhere for a job, being made redundant and then going into negative equity to sell their home, e.g. in Michigan, etc.) will very obviously be affected adversely from the lowering of taxes. Crime will rise as the have-nots have even less (via welfare, etc.) and they resort to violent means to level the playing field.

Harmor wrote:

You are right.  Lowering taxes is an inflationary catalysis, just like lowering interest rates.  Generally when people have more money, they invest it and buy things which increases the money supply, reduces interest rates, and increases demands on services and products.  Increase 'sales' of servies and products will then mean more work for those companies and those companies will then hire more workers.  That was my logic to tie lowering taxes to jobs.

There is a balance. Inflation is associated with growth but inflation itself is generally viewed as a detrimental thing. The cost of living can spiral affecting the lower echelons of society the most: detrimentally impacting on society as a whole.

Harmor wrote:

Really?  So are you saying that Capitalism, for some countries, actually is bad?  Seems to me that China is doing pretty well with a managed Capitalistic system and they are communist.  Perhaps if Russia adopted China's economy policites we would still have a U.S.S.R. to deal with.

No I'm not. I'm saying the way they tried to implement it failed miserably. That is why Putin is now in power. China are FAR from communist. It's a dictatorship pure and simple. It has a closed currency. It ain't playing by the kind of rules we western democracies play by.

Harmor wrote:

Could you site an example where lowering taxes in a Latin American country caused their economy to crash?  I think their loose monitary policies and corruption issues are more of a factor, but I'm no Latin American economist.

My reference to Latin America was with respect to how putting business ahead of society has created a lot of 'almost-failed' states, hence the surging popularity of far leftist movements (Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua, etc.). The World Bank and the IMF placed austerity measures and preconditions on Latin American countries (dropping various protectionist policies) in order for them to obtain loans. The results of those measures are plain to see if you visit most Latin American coutries.

PS I am not saying that lowering taxes is bad, I'm saying that lowering them isn't always good.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-05-05 12:46:03)

Harmor wrote:

How so?  We have a healthy economy, but the gap between the rich and poor continues to grow.  Do you mean the numbers of people in each demographic?  For example we have a much larger percentage of our population that are millionares compared to other countries...is that what you mean?

Define healthy. The wealth gap between rich and poor is enormous. By that, I mean, the top 1% of households in the US owns around 30% of everything. Meanwhile, half the population, the poorest half, owns around only 3% of everything. So, the collective wealth of the richest 1% of America owns around ten times as much stuff as the poorest half of america. 1% owns ten times what half of America owns.

http://www.faireconomy.org/images/Inequ … h_2001.gif

But it doesn't stop there, the distribution is fractal. The richest 1% of the richest 1% of households owns 30% of that wealth. In other words, the richest .1% of American households owns 9% of the wealth in America. .1% of America owns 9% of American wealth.

And it doesn't stop there either, because the gap is getting bigger.

http://www.faireconomy.org/images/Inequ … _Worth.gif

This is not a healthy economy.

herrr_smity wrote:

its healthy for those who owns 30%

No, it's profitable. There is a difference.

Harmor wrote:

herrr_smity wrote:

Harmor wrote:

Perhaps you mean that a rich person has enough capital to buy the infrastructure (machines, computers, software, etc...), to hire someone with the skills to use them to make money?

A poor person won't have the capital...

nope, do you see a rich person taking care of the garbage and maintaining the roads etc, no amout of money can do that for you.

But who paids this person's salary?  Who had the capital to buy the truck?  Who buys the asphault?  Who pays this guys each day to do the work?

The governement. Not the rich.

jonsimon wrote:

The governement. Not the rich.

But who paid the government taxes to afford those workers?


Here is a site that disusses the share of taxes by each income class:
http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/ … xation.htm

Here is a share of taxes by income group:





Tax Rates (notice when taxes went down the economy correspondingly did well):

If theres a rise in rich people, then who will work and help the economy. I prefer to see more middle class people that work hard and help out more than the rich who just spend it on a lavish lifestyle.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Its trickle down economics!  If the richest people have money, they let a few drops trickle down to us peons!

The only thing the rich want to trickle down on the rest of us is not money. But I digress. Some people are still stuck believing that labor can't exist without capital and that we should all pretty much worship the wealthy. We should all be impressed when someone worth billions donates what is essentially their pocket change to charity and does it in a fashion that shamelessly promotes themselves or their company. Anyone who doesn't fawn all over them obviously hates the wealthy and is jealous of their success. Taxation of the wealthy is an onerous burden for them cooked up by evil socialist leftists, even though they have a myriad of loopholes to utilize that the rest of us don't and legions of CPAs to ensure they maximize every one. It's a worldview that allows people to bitch and whine about a tiny percentage of their taxes going to those nassssty poor people for social services but ignore millions in corporate welfare. Fuck the rich. They don't give people jobs or goods and services out of the goodness of their hearts, they do it for profit. To them, you're a worker, you're a consumer, or you're nothing except possibly an opportunity for cheap PR.

Look at the bright side Turquoise. Eventually it'll get bad enough where the wealthy aristocracy won't be able to pay enough hired guns to protect them. We likely won't live long enough to see it, but it's still a happy thought.

herrr_smity wrote:

Harmor wrote:

herrr_smity wrote:

Have you ever got a job from a poor person

that's a stupid question its like asking if a wealthy person makes the goods that the company sells, or maintains the infrastructure of society

Perhaps you mean that a rich person has enough capital to buy the infrastructure (machines, computers, software, etc...), to hire someone with the skills to use them to make money?

A poor person won't have the capital...

nope, do you see a rich person taking care of the garbage and maintaining the roads etc, no amout of money can do that for you.

Nope, but they're paying people to do it. Not much, but hey: not everyone can be millionaires, right?

ATG wrote:

No, but I have experienced and witnessed  a general devaluing of wages because of poor people ( aka illegal aliens ).

Yep, illegal aliens have depressed wages for the lower class.  Outsourcing has also depressed wages for the middle class.