Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:Raising taxes on the rich eliminates capital for all these things while encouraging the rich to funnel addtional capital into tax shelters that help no one.
Proven, or Conjecture?
Again, it's neither proven or conjectured. It is supported by a plethora of valid evidence. In particular the super rich, those contributing more to the Dems than the Repubs, move their wealth to more wealth-friendly countries or they
buy tax shelters from our Dem and/or Repub Congress.
Golly! That's too bad! So you've decided you are not competent to debate my claims?
I root for you to give debate of my claims another try.
Quote:However, the greatest boost to employment occurs because the wealthy want more and therefore invest more directly or indirectly in businesses.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Investment by the rich =/ new jobs per se.
Cycloptichorn
There's no point in reposting what i've already written. Your contentions are bullshit in my opinion, which i expressed.
I cannot have laughed louder at a contention on your part that you are more competent at debate than is anyone else here.
It has been a long time since economics class, but I can't fault Ican's conclusions on this.
Cyclop ask yourself how many poor people have ever offered you a paying job or paid you wages or a salary. It is only common sense that rich people with capital to spend are more likely to expand their business which equals new jobs than are rich people who are forced to cut back on expansion due to confiscatory tax policy.
At the very least, the rich spending their disposable income in the United States cannot help but improve the overall economy and therefore the overall job opportunity picture. (See my previous post re the rich sheltering and/or taking their money elsewhere whenever we attempt to gouge them with increased taxes.) There may be some short term increase in federal revenues from increased taxes on the rich, but the negative ripple effect in the rest of the economy has historically produced less government revenue than when the tax rates on the rich are lower.
How does everyone feel about the idea of eliminating income tax and replacing it with a universal sales tax? The idea being that people who have more, spend more and pay more in taxes?
Quote:Cyclop ask yourself how many poor people have ever offered you a paying job or paid you wages or a salary. It is only common sense that rich people with capital to spend are more likely to expand their business which equals new jobs than are rich people who are forced to cut back on expansion due to confiscatory tax policy.
So the only hope for us to create new jobs and growth in America is to give all the money to the rich and allow them to hand us jobs? I don't buy it.
Could the government not stimulate the economy by helping new businesses start up with the aid of the greater income taken in by taxing the rich to a higher extent? If there is more government money being spent on education, will this lead to greater earnings in the future as our society becomes better educated? Would a greater redistribution of weatlh help end (or at least cut down on) social problems such as crime which would let us spend less money on enforcement?
It seems to me that there are a lot more factors in play here than just saying 'let the rich sort it out.' Has a poor person ever offered you a job? Well, maybe they could if they
weren't so damn poor. Which is the goal of economic redistribution.
Cycloptichorn
But don't ignore the part that every attempt to punish the rich for being rich has wound up hurting the poor far more than the rich. Nobody said the answer is to give all the rich the money. But neither is the answer to get the rich to pay more when they are already proportionately paying the lion's share of the taxes paid.
The way poor people become rich is usually the old fashioned way: they get a job and they earn lots of money. If it is the rich who make most of those jobs available, I think it only makes sense that it isn't the rich who are our enemy here.
The wealthy pay the absolute lion's share, not the proportional lion's share. And well they should. Government acts to provide and maintain the orgainzations of public order (police, fire, emergency medical services), the communications organizations (highways, bridges, port facilities, municipal airports), the regulatory organizations and all the nuts an bolts which allow commerce to prosper. The wealthy benefit most from this, as their access to markets depends upon it. In an anarchy, such people would only benefit if they were the biggest, meanest ones around. Quite apart from the theoretically obvious benefits, there is the all too real practice of lawmakers attaching riders to tax code and budget legislation which target specific individuals and corporations for special tax exemptions.
That "did a poor man ever offer you a job" crap is pretty damned witless. The wealthy who have profited from the tax cuts, which mortgages everyone's future, are offering jobs--to the people in India, Indonesia, Central America, anywhere from which they can import into America goods which they produce more cheaply because of low wages and operating costs cut to the bone because of the absence of laws for work place safety and fair employment practices. The right idiotically continues to tout the tax cut as improving the economy, while people are still without the jobs they claim will be on offer if we just give the wealthy some more tax cuts. The truly stupid part of it all is that when the vast majority of Americans are reduced to WalMart like working conditions and wages, the consumer economy will collapse from a lack of customers. Neither the short-term nor the long-term effects of this looting of the treasury will make the economic lives of the majority of Americans better.
But the people still demand that the minimum wage be placed higher and higher, that OSHA regulations be strengthened and workers compensation benefits expanded, that employers be forced into increasing benefits, and has anybody looked at what Kerry's touted healthcare reform will cost employers? I have.
All these things prod employers to move jobs overseas.
On the bright side, the products manufactured overseas comes back to the U.S. as merchandise that requires people to receive it, pack it, label, it, ship it, transport it, store it, stock it, sell it, service it, repair it, and that translates into jobs too. Different jobs than the manufacturing jobs that are lost, yes, but jobs nevertheless.
The bottom line is, the more government meddles in it, the harder it gets to make a buck. But it is not the rich who are the problem. It's those who want the government to do all that meddling.
The bright side . . . oh my achin' ass . . . yeah, all those former employees of the high tech industry which was moved off-shore to India will be just delighted to work in a WalMart distribution warehouse.
You really don't live in the real world, do you Fox?
Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:However, the greatest boost to employment occurs because the wealthy want more and therefore invest more directly or indirectly in businesses.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Investment by the rich =/ new jobs per se.
Investments by the rich directly or indirectly in private businesses provide these businesses the financing in addition to their profits required for growing their capability to enhance their facilities or buy additional facilities, to enhance the training of new and current employees, and to improve or buy new tools, and equipment necessary for these businesses to provide more commodities, products and/or services. While not always, a competently operated business will generally make more profit for its owners and stockholders (e.g., the more wealthy as well as the less wealthy) as it grows. This in turn makes more money available for investment and for purchases of more wants by everyone. As businesses grow they employ more people. Also, the more investment capital available, the more likely the creation of new businesses and of consequent healthy competition producing better commodities, products and services.
Bottom line: Pervasive, pernicious envy costs everyone not just the envied.
By the way, it's useful to know, but no surprising, that you are opposed to work place safety, workers' compensation, health care benefits and retirement funds--all those nasty, unreasonable demands by American workers.
And it is quite specious to interpret from my post that I am opposed to those things Setanta. I don't accuse you of making statements you don't make. I would appreciate the same courtesy.
But insults aside, let's see you make an argument that all these benefits and workplace protections work to the employees' benefit to keep jobs in the United states.
Setanta wrote:By the way, it's useful to know, but no surprising, that you are opposed to work place safety, workers' compensation, health care benefits and retirement funds--all those nasty, unreasonable demands by American workers.
You are wrong again. Perhaps your own self-programmed stereotypes are depriving you of an ability to deal with reality.
I'm not opposed to any of those things. I think such things are not only good for employees -- I was an employees for 30 years and then started my own business-- they are good for the businesses that provide these things. While the worth of employee loyalty is difficult to compute, it is widely accepted among business owners (me included) that it is better to error on the side of excess than shortage of employee benefits. The return on investment is substantial.
By the way, I prefer pursuit of mutual enlightened self-interest to pursuit only of my narrow self-interest. I've found that pursuit of mutual enligtened self-interest is far more rewarding.
It is at least refreshing Fox, to note that you consider it insulting to suggest that . . .
Quote:But the people still demand that the minimum wage be placed higher and higher, that OSHA regulations be strengthened and workers compensation benefits expanded, that employers be forced into increasing benefits, and has anybody looked at what Kerry's touted healthcare reform will cost employers? I have.
. . . would mean that you oppose those measures. As for whether or not such measures mean more jobs for workers, that is hardly at issue in a democracy in which the people have elected representatives to pass such legislation. As to jobs being shipped overseas because of them, this is simply blatant evidence of the greed of corporations as collective beings, and their individual decision-making employees. If the Congress weren't so busy attaching special tax exemption riders to bills to reward the large individual and corporate donors to their political campaigns, perhaps the voters could expect their elected representatives to pass legislation to penalize those who ship jobs overseas. The problem with that is that our representatives in Congress are less impressed with having been elected than in having been bought, lock, stock and barrel.
ican711nm wrote:You are wrong again. Perhaps your own self-programmed stereotypes are depriving you of an ability to deal with reality.
I'm not opposed to any of those things.
Inasmuch as i was not addressing that remark to you, you have once again demonstrated how irrelevant your contribution here is.
Setanta wrote:There's no point in reposting what i've already written. Your contentions are bullshit in my opinion, which i expressed.
I cannot have laughed louder at a contention on your part that you are more competent at debate than is anyone else here.
When, where did I write that? I merely implied that I was more competent at debate than you are. You are not "anyone else here". Get over it!
Sad that you need to have things explained to you. The point of that remark is that i don't consider you more competent in debate than any member here.
Get over it.
sooooooooooo, I'm curious.
Why have the U.S. misadventures in Iraq lost their favour as a point of discussion?
It's not because nothing's happening there. It's still top of the page at Google.
Quote:
U.S. troops clash with cleric's army in Iraq
CTV.ca News Staff
There's no question that there's fierce fighting between U.S. troops and militants loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr in Iraq today. But each side has a different perspective when it comes to casualties.
The U.S. military claims it has killed 300 militants in Najaf, and dozens more in other Shiite strongholds.
But a spokesman for the Shiite fighters, Sheik Raed al-Qathimi, told Reuters that only 36 fighters loyal to al-Sadr have been killed.
It's the second day of fighting between coalition troops and al-Sadr loyalists. The violence has shattered the truces reached two months ago to end a widespread Shiite rebellion.
Fighting began in the holy city of Najaf on Thursday and has since spread to several other areas across the country.
Witnesses claim that on Friday, a militia loyal to al-Sadr seized four police stations in Amarah, about 300 kilometres southeast of Baghdad.
Al-Sadr's side says the United States are responsible for the latest round of fighting.
the first article at google.ca right now
