Is it good to have wealthy businessmen in a country?

[Sparko]

Don't you think this sort of reply is a bit one dimensional? Pointing out how you think one nation is doing something more productive than your own doesn't imply that you want to move to that other place. It could just be someone's way of saying, "I love this country, but I think this country would be better if we implemented what they do over here". Now they may be wrong about that, but that doesn't mean that we should round them up and ship them out. That's sorta what's so great about America is that you can have opposing views, and some of those views (for better or worse) even have the chance of being implemented.

I was being facetious and using that to point out that Denmark DOESN'T have is so great. They have one of the highest tax rates in the world that pays for all that socialism. It averages around 50%. I am sure Nick would not want 50% of his paycheck going to support someone who is sitting on their rear end without a job. And if he does want that, why then by golly, maybe he SHOULD move over there.

[SarahB]

various things.. Like the one who says she can't work on computers because of her eyes yet spends all day on the computer at home, says "well it's different having to work in an office, the lighting hurts my eyes" or other excuses. Well gorsh, get a freaking job where you don't have to work indoors on a computer then!!! sheesh.

And you just let them get away with that? Have you tried bring it up to their church?

[Adrift]

I was being facetious and using that to point out that Denmark DOESN'T have is so great. They have one of the highest tax rates in the world that pays for all that socialism. It averages around 50%. I am sure Nick would not want 50% of his paycheck going to support someone who is sitting on their rear end without a job. And if he does want that, why then by golly, maybe he SHOULD move over there.

If 50% of one's paycheck ensured that everyone's standard of living was terrific, I think that'd be a fair compromise. Incidentally, as much as I love America, I'd love to move back to Germany, but its not so easy for expats to find jobs there, and I'd probably miss my family.

[Sparko]

And you just let them get away with that? Have you tried bring it up to their church?

Who mentioned church? Why would you assume they were even Christian?

I have no control over what they do. Legally they qualified for their government handouts. I can't make them work if they don't want to. Doesn't mean I can't complain about it on tweb or to them though. They know how I feel.

[Sparko]

If 50% of one's paycheck ensured that everyone's standard of living was terrific, I think that'd be a fair compromise.

The problem though Adrift is that in such societies, you end up with people who say, "why should I work if the guy next to me is paying my bills through his taxes?" and pretty soon you have more and more people sitting on their butts, expecting fewer and fewer people to support them.

[nickcopernicus]

well gorsh Nick. Head on over to Denmark. Nobody is stopping you. That way you will have the lifestyle you want and won't have anything to complain about. except maybe paying between 40 and 60 percent income tax to pay for all that wonderful socialism.

Nick:
So, are you going to retract your "BECAUSE THEY ALL WENT BROKE!!!" statement? Are you going to tell me about the quality of life and DEBT to GDP ratio of that socialist country compared ours? No? I didn't think so. And it's more like 70%, PLUS a high value added tax.

Sparko:
Get going now. Hop to it.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

What? are you still here?

Nick:
I live in America? That's news to me.

Sparko, I would think that having been to Germany, and I presume other countries as well, you'd be a little more enlightened.

Cheers,

Nick

[SarahB]

Who mentioned church? Why would you assume they were even Christian?

Are they Christian -- more precisely, do they say they're Christian?

I have no control over what they do. Legally they qualified for their government handouts. I can't make them work if they don't want to. Doesn't mean I can't complain about it on tweb or to them though. They know how I feel.

You can affect what they choose to do. Have you tried publicly shaming them?

The problem though Adrift is that in such societies, you end up with people who say, "why should I work if the guy next to me is paying my bills through his taxes?" and pretty soon you have more and more people sitting on their butts, expecting fewer and fewer people to support them.

Are you sitting on your butt, collecting government funds?

[lilpixieofterror]

Well, you see pretty much what you want to see lilpix, reality really doesn't need apply in pixiland.

You're so cute when you think you're fantasy land is reality.

Apparently you didn't notice that millions of people who were working lost their jobs at the end of the Bush Administration.

Sad to say, that is how reality works Jimmy. People lose their jobs, so what do you think is a good way to keep yourself employed? I've been working since I was a teenager and I've done some pretty crap jobs. Perhaps it is because I do not see myself too good to work at a grocery store or to be doing some manual work so I stayed employed while many of my peers didn't? I've seen them for myself Jimmy and I've found many people who think themselves too good to do certain jobs and think just because they went to college, they are too good to do starter jobs. Another way is to keep your skill set updated and keep expanding it so that if you happen to lose your job, you have plenty of skill sets to use in other jobs or ones that put you a cut above the rest of the applicants. I have about 3 fields and one degree (while working on another one) I could work in if the need ever arises beyond saying, "Do you want fries with that?" I'm a fast typist that knows how to be a sectary, I'm very good at mechanical work, I am a good organizer that has been a huge part of many huge base functions, and I have also learned things like CPR to expand my skill set with. In other words, many people who find themselves out of work often do not expand themselves and end up royally screwed when the market changes away from their chosen career.

BTW I didn't care for Bush while he was in office and I do not care for him now. Got something else to rant about or do you think that those that dare to disagree with you = republican and there is no in between areas with those that dare to disagree with the great Jimmy?

We were losing jobs at a rate of 800 thousand jobs a month.

I love assertions, but I really do doubt that the job rate would have been that fast for that long or else we would have an entire country out of work in just a few years. Maybe a month or two, at most but guess what... the markets were regulated and yet there was still a crash. Are you so deluded that you think markets cannot go though crashes? Welcome to the open market, crashes are going to happen, so the best way to deal with these crashes is you know, don't see yourself as too good to do manual labor or to keep expanding your skills so you can stand out from the other hundred or so applicants?

Do you think that all of these people conspired to quit their jobs so that they could live on the government dole.

Since I did not say that, you are attacking a strawmen instead of what I said. I am talking about those that stay out of work for years or even decades at a time or those that simply find excuses not to do jobs they feel are beneath them because they are too prideful to do them. I have no problem with helping those that have fallen on hard times, I do not see why we should help somebody that refuses to go out and get themselves a job or cannot swallow their own pride.

Do you think that when their unemployment insurance ran out they decided to live in the street rather than go back to work.

Again Jimmy keeps attacking strawmen instead of what was said? Did I say they shouldn't be helped? Nope. Did I say we should help them? Yep, did I say that there are people abusing the system and my comments are directed them? Yes. If you want to keep burning these strawmen down, go ahead. I will just amuse myself by insulting you if you do.

There are plenty of jobs indeed! Do you ever deal in facts lilpix? Do you know what the ratio is between jobs and people looking for jobs?

I haven't been out of work since I was a teenager Jimmy, why do you suppose that is? It is because I was not afraid to work any sort of job when I was younger and I joined the service and have kept myself useful my entire time in by learning new things and expanding skills I already have (just so you are aware, the military is cutting people by the thousands, so please don't pretend the military is a secure job because it isn't). I know those my age group dear and many of them are total tools like you that seem to not know a thing about reality. You may not get that high paying job right away, you may have to work a job where you sweep floors and have to do some crap work, you might even fall on hard times and need some help. I have no issue with these people, I have issues with those that see themselves too good to do some jobs. I have already said that those that have real issues, should be helped, those that simply refuse to take jobs that feel are 'beneath them' are full of pride and really need their pride knocked down a bit. I do not see myself as too good to do a job to feed myself and take care of my family, do you? Granted, there are those that fall on hard times or those who need help, I have no issue with helping them and I have helped them in the past, but I do have issues with those looking for a hand out. Do you know the difference between these two or do you just assume I want them all thrown into the street?

[lilpixieofterror]

Who mentioned church? Why would you assume they were even Christian?

I have no control over what they do. Legally they qualified for their government handouts. I can't make them work if they don't want to. Doesn't mean I can't complain about it on tweb or to them though. They know how I feel.

She's a troll trying anything she can do to attack Christians and Christianity with.

[lilpixieofterror]

I don't understand what you're saying here, could you elaborate?

Sure, if you could get something for nothing, why work?

Welcome to the New Millennium! Thanks to China, we can make electronics very cheap, and even cheaper on the second hand market! We no longer live in the 60s where a black and white television was for the upper crust and the purchase of one was a community event.

So you're saying that 'poor people' have 400 dollar plus flat screen TV's with things connected to them that cost a few hundred dollars too. It is called priorities PM, if you are complaining that you do not have enough food to eat while you buy toys, are you really that poor?

The government helping the poor isn't based on charity, it's based on an interest in the country's wellbeing. Just like when we send money to other countries to help their people, there's an ulterior motive of getting strong political allies.

Helping the poor and giving people hand outs so they don't have to work is two different things. Like Sparko said though PM, if you want to help the poor, do you mind if a family moves in with you and you got to pay all of their bills? After all, shouldn't you help the poor?

Poor people complain because medical costs are ridiculous and healthy food costs too much. Those are actual problems worth addressing. It's disingenuous to select a characterization and claim that's the strongest argument a side has. Someone who can't afford vegetables for their children or can't pay for preventable or curable illnesses can't fix their problems with a change in perspective.

And yet they could afford TV equipment that cost several hundred dollars apiece and afford new games, movies, internet, and TV service to provide these services to their home. Yet they can't afford medical care or healthy food? You really do not think there is nothing wrong with that picture at all? In reality land, you first use your money to buy the stuff you need, before you buy toys. Do I have some of those things I mentioned? Of course, but I do not go out and buy new toys until my bills are all paid up either. What is more important, health insurance for my family or cable TV? If I do not have the money to get a new TV, I do not get it, simple as that.

First off, a company doesn't hire people because it has the money to spare. A company hires people to meet demand.

How do companies expand to make even more money? They hire people or again, have you never had any sort of business or economics classes in your life? I think the answer to this question is no, am I right? Do you think Wal-Mart became so large by not expanding its operations, hiring more people, and bringing in more money? You really should step into the business dept every now and then, you might actually learn something.

Second, the most effective stimulus is one that most efficiently leads to spending. Food stamps are spent immediately and they go to real estate cost, salaries, buying more product, etc.

Another assertion without anything at all to back it up. Do you have anything at all to back that stat up with or do you just like it and haven't looked to see if it is true?

I'm getting that info from this Economist article referencing a Moody's Analytics study. Giving money to a poor person would help them afford food they couldn't otherwise (or free up funds for improvement) as well as help them survive medical bills. Why do you donate to charities if helping out the less fortunate will just make them dependent?

And did I say I had a problem with giving money to people that can't afford it? Nope, but I have a problem giving it to people that seem to think buying new toys is more important than buying food. Again, you really are blissfully unaware of these things, are you?

BTW you are aware that The Economist is rather consertive in many of its articles, right?

Welcome to politics.

So we should allow them to keep buying votes instead of looking out for the interest of our country as a whole?

[SarahB]

She's a troll trying anything she can do to attack Christians and Christianity with.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. It's the obnoxious, pugnacious narcissists and megalomaniacs cloaking their neuroses in religion, who get my criticism.

[joel]

People don't receive benefits from the work of others, people pay a country in exchange for the services it provides and it uses that money to continue its services.

That might be the case if it consisted of voluntary exchanges. But it doesn't.

With taxation, it is inevitable that two castes are created: net-tax-payers and net-tax-consumers.

With taxation, you necessarily are taking money from people against their will for services they don't think are worth the price (otherwise taxation would be superfluous--they would pay it voluntarily), or for others ("benefiting from the work of others").

And transfer payments (which make up the vast majority of federal spending) are most clearly the transfer of wealth from some people to other people (people receiving benefits from the work of others).

P.S. Programs like food stamps actually improve the economy, making rich people more money.

Because the money the receive is going to be spent immediately on local businesses (in the case of food stamps). That's a much better investment than, say, giving tax cuts to the rich. Spending our money on food stamps actually makes the economy better than it was before, meaning everyone is going to be making more money in the long run. Food stamps allow everyone to win!

This is illogical.

It is like the story of the guy who steals money from a store and then tells the store owner, "Don't worry; this is going to benefit you too, because I'm going to spend it all at your store."

The result would be the same if the guy had just stolen the goods directly in the first place. The result is the opposite of economic stimulus--a drop in production. (Because it pushes marginal cost above marginal revenue, so businessmen will reduce production.)

The result of a tax is no different. If you tax producers to give to consumers, and the consumers spend that money on goods made by producers, then the effect would be the same if the tax took those goods, instead of taking money. Money is just the medium of exchange. What's ultimately taken in taxation are the goods. This is not a net boost in business, but a loss (to producers) of a certain portion of the output of production. It is accounted as a cost/loss.

Just to hammer the point home, consider a concrete example.
Suppose a businessman produces or purchases 11 units of a good.
Suppose he then sells 10 of those units.
He then has: 10*price_of_the_good + 1 unit of the good

But now impose a 10% sales tax (Could be any tax). So he pays 1*price_of_the_good, and the government gives this money to someone else, and that recipient uses the money to buy one unit of the good.

The result is that the businessman has: 10*price_of_the_good + 0 units of the good.
Comparing his before-tax situation to his after-tax situation, he must conclude that the tax has left him poorer by one unit of the good (the full amount of the tax). The effect to the economy would be the same as if all production processes were injured such that 1 out of every 11 units is defective and must be destroyed. This is a major blow to production, not a stimulus. Likewise, eliminating the tax would be like a sudden 10% increase in productivity.


And then in reality, the blow to the economy is even worse than this, because there is additional loss in the government. Taxes cause deadweight loss. Some amount of the tax is lost due to government inefficiency and unavoidable overhead, and paying government employees.

And the cut-back in production causes lowered wages (and/or unemployment) and increased prices, which likely outweighs any benefit to the people to which the government gives the handouts. Thus you can't even assume that the poor are benefited by this.

[lilpixieofterror]

Wro... blah blah blah, rant rant rant...

Go away troll, adults talking.

[Sparko]

Nick:
So, are you going to retract your "BECAUSE THEY ALL WENT BROKE!!!" statement? Are you going to tell me about the quality of life and DEBT to GDP ratio of that socialist country compared ours? No? I didn't think so. And it's more like 70%, PLUS a high value added tax.

Nick:
I live in America? That's news to me.

Sparko, I would think that having been to Germany, and I presume other countries as well, you'd be a little more enlightened.

Cheers,

Nick

Well as I recall you are in the US Military, so no matter where you are stationed you are an American, But if you dislike our system so much, you are free to move.

And no, I am not retracting anything. Denmark is not a true socialist state, yet at a 40 to 60% tax rate, they are well on their way to being broke. Europe is probably one of the only things keeping them afloat. Luckily the population of Denmark is probably less than Canada (two reindeer and a guy named Olaf)

[Sparko]

Are they Christian -- more precisely, do they say they're Christian?

You can affect what they choose to do. Have you tried publicly shaming them?

Are you sitting on your butt, collecting government funds?

Unilke you, I work for a living, and pay my taxes.