In a globalized world yes.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
http://www.google.com/search?q=retail+sales+december+2007&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B2GGFB_enUS223US223&aq=t
everyone is feeling it
Poll
If the Economy of your country faced Challenges you'd prefer...
| My government increasing taxes | 22% | 22% - 11 | ||||
| My government reducing the spendings (which areas?) | 29% | 29% - 14 | ||||
| A mix of both | 31% | 31% - 15 | ||||
| A tax cut, I don't care about the economy | 8% | 8% - 4 | ||||
| Other | 8% | 8% - 4 | ||||
| Total: 48 | ||||||
I agree that it's not the best way to achieve a better economy, but the idea that the economy can only be stimulated by giving tax breaks to the rich in the hope they will re-invest it it is wrong. Giving tax breaks to the poor and thereby increasing demand wil also stimulate the economy. Which of these two effects will have the greatest effect depends upon the counbtry in question. In the case of large wealth inequality, then stimulating weak demand has a much more beneficial effect. Taxing the rich more makes them feel poorer and gives an incentive to earn more money though business ventures.CameronPoe wrote:
Disagree. Raising mininum wages is not progressive. It should be a last resort. It warps the supply and demand relationship for a start which is never good. Having said that - no one answer is correct, different measures are appropriate for different situations, and the economy is a complex beast that constantly needs to be maintained.PureFodder wrote:
Raise minimum wages -> people with more money -> people spending more money -> stimulation of weak demand -> companies selling more things, expanding, more jobs etc.
I think there is a lot of presumption that Government spending is somehow efficient. Government is very wasteful.
People are always more careful with their own money. How can you trust the government, when it doesn't earn what it gets? You earn it, Government takes it, and spends it on whatever.
I think the thing is, most of the people on this forums still get tax rebates. So they get much of their income taxes paid back to them. Last year I owed a tax bill of over $2000 on money that I did not make.
This is not an uncommon thing for a business owner.
People are always more careful with their own money. How can you trust the government, when it doesn't earn what it gets? You earn it, Government takes it, and spends it on whatever.
I think the thing is, most of the people on this forums still get tax rebates. So they get much of their income taxes paid back to them. Last year I owed a tax bill of over $2000 on money that I did not make.
This is not an uncommon thing for a business owner.
Vote for the government that you think will spend the money in an efficient way. You can't wait for 50 million people to act all the same way and save the extra cash, instead of wasting it in LCD's.G3|Genius wrote:
I think there is a lot of presumption that Government spending is somehow efficient. Government is very wasteful.
People are always more careful with their own money. How can you trust the government, when it doesn't earn what it gets? You earn it, Government takes it, and spends it on whatever.
I think the thing is, most of the people on this forums still get tax rebates. So they get much of their income taxes paid back to them. Last year I owed a tax bill of over $2000 on money that I did not make.
This is not an uncommon thing for a business owner.
its impossible for govt to spend efficiently
True, but it's the government who should spend money on issues like infraestructure, health, education, etc.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
its impossible for govt to spend efficiently
It's impossible for companies with advertising, CEO pay, investors to pay, several companies all using seperate administration (as opposed to a single centrallised government admin) the demand for short term profits to encourage investment, to be efficient in large scale projects like social security and healthcare.sergeriver wrote:
True, but it's the government who should spend money on issues like infraestructure, health, education, etc.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
its impossible for govt to spend efficiently
See the costs of US healthcare in comparison to every social healthcare program in the entire world. The only US healthcare program that's even within earshot of efficiency is medicare.
my hernia surgery cost $20000
nope. Afraid it does not work that way. Increasing the minimum wage means a buisness owner who pays his people minimum wage either has to charge more for his products or not employ as many people. So, costs rise and employment goes down.PureFodder wrote:
Raise minimum wages -> people with more money -> people spending more money -> stimulation of weak demand -> companies selling more things, expanding, more jobs etc.
Also, the big unions worker's saleries are based on mulitples of the minimum wage (such as 3.2 times whatever minimum wage is), so even those those people do not actually work for minimum wage, if you boost it, all of their wages shoot up. And so the problem exists for any business who employ a lot of union workers. Like the auto industry, the steel inustry, construction... the cost to employ labor shoots up, so the companies have to jack up prices or fire workers.
And all those people who do not work for minimum wage or have wages connected to it (the majority of us) will see nothing but increasing prices for goods with no change to our paycheck, while watching unemployment rates rise.
That is what raising the minimum wage does.
***EDIT: and give tax breaks to the poor? (I am speaking because I have been one of the poor before). If your income was that low, you get back all the money in taxes that you paid. How much more of a break do you want?
Last edited by imortal (2008-01-11 10:03:20)
...that is using YOUR value system, not mine. It is an opinion and a viewpoint. Just like mine is that I think the government should be responsible for as little of that as possible.sergeriver wrote:
True, but it's the government who should spend money on issues like infraestructure, health, education, etc.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
its impossible for govt to spend efficiently
Year in year out the government increases taxes around here. Regardless, nothing gets done. A buncha assholes...
ƒ³
Other - Gold rush.
The way you respond to economic difficulties depends on what the cause of them is. It's somewhat analogous to making a poll titled "Chemotherapy or antibiotics, how would you deal with injury?", when the injury could be a broken leg for all you know.
The way you respond to economic difficulties depends on what the cause of them is. It's somewhat analogous to making a poll titled "Chemotherapy or antibiotics, how would you deal with injury?", when the injury could be a broken leg for all you know.
Imortal hit it.
That was a perfect post.
Thomas Paine said, "That government which governs best, governs least."
I think that sums it up.
That was a perfect post.
Thomas Paine said, "That government which governs best, governs least."
I think that sums it up.
No, I pay taxes, I voted for a government and I want it to do something with my money.G3|Genius wrote:
Imortal hit it.
That was a perfect post.
Thomas Paine said, "That government which governs best, governs least."
I think that sums it up.
Last edited by sergeriver (2008-01-11 11:58:26)
But he sells more as more people can afford to spend more money thereby increasing turnover.imortal wrote:
nope. Afraid it does not work that way. Increasing the minimum wage means a buisness owner who pays his people minimum wage either has to charge more for his products or not employ as many people. So, costs rise and employment goes down.PureFodder wrote:
Raise minimum wages -> people with more money -> people spending more money -> stimulation of weak demand -> companies selling more things, expanding, more jobs etc.
Also, the big unions worker's saleries are based on mulitples of the minimum wage (such as 3.2 times whatever minimum wage is), so even those those people do not actually work for minimum wage, if you boost it, all of their wages shoot up. And so the problem exists for any business who employ a lot of union workers. Like the auto industry, the steel inustry, construction... the cost to employ labor shoots up, so the companies have to jack up prices or fire workers.
And all those people who do not work for minimum wage or have wages connected to it (the majority of us) will see nothing but increasing prices for goods with no change to our paycheck, while watching unemployment rates rise.
That is what raising the minimum wage does.
***EDIT: and give tax breaks to the poor? (I am speaking because I have been one of the poor before). If your income was that low, you get back all the money in taxes that you paid. How much more of a break do you want?
Thomas Paine was a massive believer in the welfare state. Pensions, unemployment benefits, maternity pay, education were all things that he wanted society to jointly be responsable for.G3|Genius wrote:
Imortal hit it.
That was a perfect post.
Thomas Paine said, "That government which governs best, governs least."
I think that sums it up.
Bureaucracy...100s if not 1000s of people in the government doing pretty much nothing. Oh, and keep health care private.
But if you have to charge more just to maintain your profit margin, it eats up all those "excess funds" you insist everyone will have. When, in fact, only a very few people actually work for minimum wage, and a relatively limited number of people work at wages pegged to the minimum wage. The increase of cost for products will be wide ranging and universal. Most of us who would not have our wages increased would bear the brunt of the increase in prices. So, few gain a little and many lose a lot.PureFodder wrote:
But he sells more as more people can afford to spend more money thereby increasing turnover.imortal wrote:
nope. Afraid it does not work that way. Increasing the minimum wage means a buisness owner who pays his people minimum wage either has to charge more for his products or not employ as many people. So, costs rise and employment goes down.PureFodder wrote:
Raise minimum wages -> people with more money -> people spending more money -> stimulation of weak demand -> companies selling more things, expanding, more jobs etc.
Also, the big unions worker's saleries are based on mulitples of the minimum wage (such as 3.2 times whatever minimum wage is), so even those those people do not actually work for minimum wage, if you boost it, all of their wages shoot up. And so the problem exists for any business who employ a lot of union workers. Like the auto industry, the steel inustry, construction... the cost to employ labor shoots up, so the companies have to jack up prices or fire workers.
And all those people who do not work for minimum wage or have wages connected to it (the majority of us) will see nothing but increasing prices for goods with no change to our paycheck, while watching unemployment rates rise.
That is what raising the minimum wage does.
***EDIT: and give tax breaks to the poor? (I am speaking because I have been one of the poor before). If your income was that low, you get back all the money in taxes that you paid. How much more of a break do you want?
I would prefer less corruption at the corporate and bureaucratic level. I would prefer less public money being funneled to private persons, both within and outside of government. I don't think you would necessarily need to increase taxes or reduce spending at all.
Raising the minimum wage creates a situation where employers must discriminate against unskilled labor. It forces companies to be charitable when not every one is in a position to be. Raising the minimum wage sounds like a noble idea on paper and in the minds of the shortsided, but it often raises the overhead to a level that employers can't handle. Usually the people hurt most by minimum wage increases are those at the bottom of the economic ladder. They lose their jobs (and opportunity) all together because employers can not afford to keep them on or hire them.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
You could tax everyone to death and it wouldn't help our debt and huge entitlements. Spending is going to have to be reduced. Get rid things that don't work or down size them. We need to stop subsidizing and restricting our "free market."
If spending and savings are good, that is one sign the economy is healthy in one aspect. If spending is good but savings are not, or even negative, then that is a sign things are not looking too great. 70% of our GDP is based on consumer spending, so a weaker dollar surely doesn't help. But spending what you don't have is misleading, and it we are paying for it.
That isn't necessarily true. If people are not making much money and/or commodities increase in price, it becomes harder for them to pay the bills, but they can always borrow money to spend. If the Fed didn't keep printing all this money for banks to take and give huge loans to people with basically anyone with a pulse, we wouldn't have this mess in the housing market today.G3|Genius wrote:
How do we measure the economy? Simple. How much are people spending? The more money people spend, the better the economy is.
Obviously, then, the key to having a healthy economy is making sure that people have enough money. Where do people get their money? Most of us get money from our jobs. We went to work for a company owned by someone with money, and we said, "If you are willing to give me some of your money, I will help you make more money."
If spending and savings are good, that is one sign the economy is healthy in one aspect. If spending is good but savings are not, or even negative, then that is a sign things are not looking too great. 70% of our GDP is based on consumer spending, so a weaker dollar surely doesn't help. But spending what you don't have is misleading, and it we are paying for it.
IMO:
Higher proportional taxation, higher government spending, lower interest rates is the way to go - at least according to what my econ teacher has taught my class over the last 2 years.
-konfusion
Higher proportional taxation, higher government spending, lower interest rates is the way to go - at least according to what my econ teacher has taught my class over the last 2 years.
-konfusion
I'd like to punch your econ teacher in the chest.konfusion wrote:
IMO:
Higher proportional taxation, higher government spending, lower interest rates is the way to go - at least according to what my econ teacher has taught my class over the last 2 years.
-konfusion
He's also a Bush-supporter, a republican, and used to teach on the south side of Chicago. He's one of the most fun teachers I've ever hadPhrozenbot wrote:
I'd like to punch your econ teacher in the chest.
-konfusion
I choose the option you didn't provide: focused tax cuts and focused spending cuts tied together. It has already been proven over the past several years that tax cuts increase government revenue. Unfortunately, there were not any spending cuts associated with those increased revenues, which has resulted in an increased deficit.
First places to look for cuts: obvious pork, entitlement program reform, offering options for privatizing at least part of social security, removing the "unfunded mandate" from the federal government. If states want some entitlement program, then they have to fund it themselves. Close examination of all parts of the federal government to determine what can be reduced/removed.
Develop a real, fair tax policy that doesn't stifle entrepeneurship. Simply taxing the wealthy more (percentage-wise) is not fair...there must be other solutions that protect the lower echelons of the workforce while not punishing those who succeed.
First places to look for cuts: obvious pork, entitlement program reform, offering options for privatizing at least part of social security, removing the "unfunded mandate" from the federal government. If states want some entitlement program, then they have to fund it themselves. Close examination of all parts of the federal government to determine what can be reduced/removed.
Develop a real, fair tax policy that doesn't stifle entrepeneurship. Simply taxing the wealthy more (percentage-wise) is not fair...there must be other solutions that protect the lower echelons of the workforce while not punishing those who succeed.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular