Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth

[killerweed420]

You know its sad because I think the future holds a lot more unions. With the dems in power and trying to get living wages for employees the simple answer is for more unionized workers. I've been union a couple times and I absolutely hate it. I think its closer to communism than anything else. But I understand why people want to become unionized. And the couple companies that I worked for had a reason for unionizing. The owners were absolute crooks.
But with greedy companies refusing to be fair and pay living wages I think its coming. Congress won't do anything about corporate greed. All they do is talk about it.

[maladroit]

unions aren't the only answer...the government can do better things to encourage domestic job development by reducing the profit incentive of exporting jobs to foreign countries

[JakeMartinez]

I've said this before; but apparently you've missed it.

There are more ways to generate revenues from taxes than by simply raising them. Through lowering of taxes you do a number of things for companies that allow the government to create greater tax revenue:

• Job creation puts more individuals out there with taxable income. As the simple sentence suggests these new jobs are essentially new money that the government wasn't previously getting. Allowing for more tax revenue to be generated.
  
• Lower taxes increase company productivity. Through increased productivity the company is able to generate more product that may be high in demand. Leading to a high amount of trade in volume. Allowing for more tax revenue to be generated.
  
• Lower taxes also result in cheaper products. When prices fall then demand goes up. With demand up you are also trading at a higher volume than previously. Allowing for more tax revenue to be generated.

There's more that goes into this and then you have how lower taxes effects the market which also effects the economy but you get the basic gist of it.

Raising taxes doesn't create jobs or create cheaper products or increase productivity. However it does create more tax revenue for the government for a SHORT TIME. It will only create more revenue for as long as businesses can keep their productivity up under the new stresses.

Decreasing taxes has always proven to increase trade volume, create jobs and create cheaper/better products.

but to each his own, but the next time you go off on a rant that has an air of condescending tone to it be sure that you understand the topic you are discussing from all angles.

I appreciate being told off like a child, but you didn't answer my question. And, for that matter, neither did the person it was directed to.

If lower taxes are better for the economy, then obviously the best thing we could do for it is do away with government altogether. So, why not?

And Daihashi, our economy grows and acts independent of what our government does. Saying that lower taxes is the only reason we can live in such a wonderfully materialistic, free-market society is to ignore the U.S.'s vast resources. That's why we have such a great economy, taxes have nothing to do with it.

[daihashi]

that is a valid point about profitability, but it has nothing to do with productivity

productivity
Definition
The amount of output per unit of input (labor, equipment, and capital). There are many different ways of measuring productivity. For example, in a factory productivity might be measured based on the number of hours it takes to produce a good, while in the service sector productivity might be measured based on the revenue generated by an employee divided by his/her salary.

productivity Definition

sigh.. ok here we go again.

Lower taxes on businesses that work in large numbers (meaning that regardless if they are a small or large business.. they pull in large amount of revenue/profit) would increase productivity by allowing the business to purchase more equipment/tools/assets etc etc that make the efficiency/productivity of the company much higher.

Here's a crude example: Johnny runs a paper route before school that allows him to deliver papers to 40 houses on his 10 speed bicycle.. johnny is currently taxed 33% on his earnings. Johnny saves his money to be able to buy a Moped which allows him to take on 2 additional routes in 2 neighborhoods outside of his own in the same amount of time it took him to deliver papers in his neighborhood alone. Johnny has increased both his productivity and efficiency.

Tax Johnny an additional 3-6% and now you impede Johnny's ability to be able to purchase that moped. That 3-6% could've been all that Johnny had to set aside for the Moped budget; all the other money could've already been accounted for some of Johnny's other needs personally and for the cost to maintain his paper route.

Secondly.. lower taxes; can hire more employee's. Which could also increase your productivity. More employees working typically mean shorter wait times for product development, research or whatever else. Anyway you look at it; regardless if it directly puts a product on the shelf or not, additional employees equate to higher productivity within the company; which indirectly effects the cost of the product and the volume of which it is traded.

[maladroit]

thanks for your patience in explaining that to me

buying more equipment to increase productivity makes sense, but as productivity increases due to new equipment, fewer employees are required to do the same work so joe the plumber and max the media tycoon will be firing people and pocketing the difference

[daihashi]

I appreciate being told off like a child, but you didn't answer my question. And, for that matter, neither did the person it was directed to.

If lower taxes are better for the economy, then obviously the best thing we could do for it is do away with government altogether. So, why not?

I didn't answer your question and I was never obligated to. If you took it as being told off like a child then I'm sorry, but that is your own problem of perception and not mine. If you can't handle having one of your posts picked apart.. analyzed and criticized resulting in an answer that you disagree with then you really shouldn't be posting. Being told off as a child? I completely disagree, explaining how there are more ways to generate taxes when you gave the impression that you believed that the only way to generate income for the government is through raised taxes.. then yes of that I'm guilty. So sue me

Your question that you pose actually makes no sense what so ever. If we have no government then the things that we do need the government for will no longer be there either.

Do you enjoy the roads you drive on? Do you enjoy being able to go to work without worrying if we will be invaded by another country? Do you enjoy having a legal system as opposed to a lawless system where if you piss somoene off they could shoot you without any consequence to them?

You probably do enjoy these things, I know I do. For these things we do need a government; however with that said that doesn't mean the government is the end all answer to our problems. The real root of the problem is government spending and over complicated/under performed government programs.

Raising taxes is a short term fix that will inevitably come back to bite us in the ass in a few years.

And Daihashi, our economy grows and acts independent of what our government does. Saying that lower taxes is the only reason we can live in such a wonderfully materialistic, free-market society is to ignore the U.S.'s vast resources. That's why we have such a great economy, taxes have nothing to do with it.

No, you're right it does act independantly but what we do can and does influence the economy. In case you haven't realized it our economy isn't in the crapper but it's not doing so hot. It is a very good reflection of the current bonds markets; which are a fairly good snapshot of how our economy is doing. I am not just talking about t-bills.. I am also referring to corporate bonds as well.

In a time when the economy is on shakey ground and you propose tax increases then here's where the chain reaction begins.

Companies jobs are to protect it's owners and investors.. protecting it's employees are actually very low on the agenda list. To protect it's investors it will cut back production... which will decrease supply and in the end effect the final dollar of what you pay at the store.. leaving you with less and less money to spend on other needs.

In addition a company may choose to cut employees.. creating a higher number of those unemployed.. without any taxable income now. So the government get's no money from them and they only get money from the government (MAYBE!! if they qualify) for a short time. The result is the same, less spending and a stagnant economy.

So you're right.. the market does work independently.. but you're wrong... the government can and does influence which way the economy turns. Key word being influence...

[daihashi]

thanks for your patience in explaining that to me

buying more equipment to increase productivity makes sense, but as productivity increases due to new equipment, fewer employees are required to do the same work so joe the plumber and max the media tycoon will be firing people and pocketing the difference

That would be true if you're only trying to do the same amount of work. If you are a business and are trying to increase your profits during a period of growth for your business.. then it is very unlikely that you would fire that employee. Instead you can have the employee help out where you are lacking or take up new tasks all together that would benefit everyone in the company.

People don't realize this but in order to make money.. you have to spend money.

If you were making 250k a year and this new equipment allowed you to free up the work of 1 person... then you could choose to fire a person and keep making 250k a year or you could choose to keep them on, assign them a new task that would help increase your companies productivty and in turn maybe help your company make 275k-300k next year or more.

Most companies want to continue growing... most don't want to get smaller.

[maladroit]

i think you're putting the cart before the horse...joe's plumbing business doesn't automatically grow by increasing labour or increasing efficiency...business grows because demand grows

[daihashi]

i think you're putting the cart before the horse...joe's plumbing business doesn't automatically grow by increasing labour or increasing efficiency...business grows because demand grows

And demand grows with prices of products are down. Supply dictates the cost of a product. Therefore if supply (in this case you've switched to plumbers) is low and demand is high.. then Joe will have to charge a premium for his time.

While this sounds good on paper because Joe is getting more money.. it's actually bad because he is bound to have fewer customers which means less recurring business; If he loses a customer then it has a larger impact on his business, not just that but if business is doing well he will have to turn people away.. resulting in less money generated.

If he had another hand helping him then Joe could take on more business.

In addition to this let's say Chuck down the road was able to get hired because of decreased taxes on a small business near by. Now Chuck has some disposable income to give to Joe... which would increase the demand for his business. Chuck is a completely new entry into the economy. Chuck's new money can then be handed off to Joe.. which Joe then uses to hire an additional hand.. who generates more income for Joe and more taxes for the government (both for the new hires income tax and for the net income of the company.) in turn Joe's company is naturally going to need to buy more supplies than normal... he turns to some wholesale retailer to buy products.. who in turn has, let's say 200 employees which joes money in turn helps to employ, these 200 employees then go out with their money and are able to get services they need or spend it on entertainment..

either way you can see that this is a never ending cycle. In a business you plan for the worst but you implement scalable solutions. If you are not constantly trying to expand your business then it will fail.


I suspect you're going to use the argument "well if someone doesn't have any money to spend then Joe get's nothing.". Which would be a valid argument except the following:

If taxes are raised 3-6% then at best.. BEST job creations will come to a dead slow crawl or a halt altogether. Which means when you have turnovers in your workforce.. that workforce are not finding new jobs; or if they are then it takes a while. So for a while you have people with no jobs and cannot find jobs; as opposed to the people who have maintained their jobs now making an extra $10-20 a week on their paycheck.

What's better for the economy? A person with an extra 10 bucks in their pocket or a person who has a full time job with 100-200 dollars in their pocket that they can spend? Hell.. what's better morally? Putting $10 in your own pocket or passing the plate and letting the person to the right of you who has nothing be able to claim a job?

[Psycho4Bud]

So he makes $250,000 AFTER paying his employees and all The expenses? So after profiting $250,000, how would it make his life any harder to pay a little bit more in taxes?

It won't in the end because he'll just lay off a couple of employees in order to stay within the lifestyle he/she is accustom to. The work won't decrease but the expectations of the workers left will increase for sure.

Yet the people that don't get such a massive surplus in profit are suppose to spend almost all of there disposable income just to get by?

Why own company "x" and have all the headaches of dealing with employees, codes, general issues when you can be just as comfortable being an employee? If I'm pulling refrigerant for a company and fail to keep up the records, the company is the one accountable to the EPA with possible fines of $27,000/day of violation. Just one example of what risks the small business owner takes.

If he/she wants to ride in a Lincoln then good for them, they can have it. I'm just as happy of a person on my bike and I don't have the headaches to take home with me. I go in and bust my ass I get rewarded; if not, I take my tail down the road to one of his competitors.

Like I've said before, If I made that much money I would GLADLY give a little extra to help 95% of the country out.

I'm with ya on that but I want to decide where the hell it goes. Cheap Joe Biden made $250,000 and gave roughly $350 in charity; I made less than a fifth of that and gave 3 times the amount. IF he was so hip on this idea that people making over $250,000/yr. should be giving more don't ya think he should be showing it by his actions?

I'm not a greedy little pig that thinks 95% of the country is trailer trash that just sits on their lazy ass all day looking for handouts.

I hear ya! Joe kind of pisses me off too from time to time!

Have a good one!:s4: