27 ms·
If the goverment wants jobs then why don't they just do so? They have the mandate to create new regulation. They could for example say that pumping gas at the
by ensiferum 9y ago
If the goverment wants jobs then why don't they just do so?
They have the mandate to create new regulation. They could for example say that pumping gas at the station is a job that requires training and only qualified personnel can do this job.
That would instantly create new jobs and the businesses would be forced to accommodate.
Hiring someone is a last recourse for any business since it's very expensive so you can't expect businesses to magically create jobs.
- remline 9y agoThe concept behind sin taxes was to tax what you don't like more than what you do like. Modern governments apparently hate jobs and earned income the most.
- foota 9y agoHow would you rather the govt tax? Seems to be a lot more efficient to tax income rather than to have separate taxes on different kinds of consumption and investment.
- Kluny 9y agoAs it stands, income gets higher tax than capital gains. Capital gains are taxed at half the income tax rate. So people who make most of their money on capital gains are 1) very wealthy 2) paying less tax than poorer people who rely on working for a living 3) incentivized to keep their money in investment vehicles and out of circulation. I'd suggest reversing it and taxing capital gains at the full rate and income tax at half. This is how it's done in Switzerland I believe, if you want a case study. They seem like they're doing okay.
- christocracy 9y agoCap gains are taxed lower because it's already taxed money being invested. In addition, it's a reward for risking your money by investing it into the economy (no, this money is not "out of circulation")
- jameshart 9y agoI've never understood the 'already taxed' argument. Money circulates; governments decide that certain transactions are taxable. The money left over in a given transaction after the tax is paid doesn't magically become exempt from taxation in future transactions, morally, legally or factually. Arguments against inheritance or capital gains taxes on the basis that they tax money that has already been taxed just privilege the idea that taxing earned income is axiomatically legitimate - the one transaction that it's okay to tax. But why is that special? Why not pick sale of goods as the legitimate taxable transaction, then paying tax on wages is paying taxes on money that has already been taxed. Paying someone for their labor is a taxable transaction. Selling an asset at an appreciated value is a taxable transaction. Transferring wealth to descendants after death is a taxable transaction. 'Already taxed' money is not a thing.
- Kluny 9y agoIt just that there's a surplus of capital right now - you can tell by the way bond and savings interest rates are close to zero. The reward for risking your money isn't needed right now. People can't find enough places to leave their money.
- ashark 9y agoThe money in my paycheck has already been taxed a bunch of times by that logic, so my taxes should go down, right?
- golergka 9y agoYour country is not the only one on the globe. You can only tax so much before the thing being taxed starts to move elsewhere. Capital is more mobile than labor.
- Retric 9y agoCapital is often less mobile than labor, homes and salt mines generally don't move. Also there is no reason not to tax foreign investors as shockingly they don't vote and capital is not in short supply.
- humanrebar 9y agoWe're already paying the cost on monitoring, regulating, and taxing different kinds of consumption and investment. Might as well just make those taxes higher as appropriate and decrease/eliminate income taxes.
- foota 9y agoYou'd have to be very careful not to create significantly more regressive taxes.
- humanrebar 9y agoI'm OK with that. If the problem is that life is expensive, solve the problem directly with a minimum income or more generous earned income tax credit.
- stupidhn 9y ago>Seems to be a lot more efficient to tax income rather than to have separate taxes on different kinds of consumption and investment. Consumption taxes are about as efficient as taxes get, especially when you can exempt specific products (and increase taxation on extreme luxuries).
- nvivo 9y agoAs someone from a country where this happens (in Brazil it's mandatory to have employees to handle fuel pumps in order to protect jobs), I think it's crazy to even think this is a good idea. We have very expensive fuel and I'm required to wait in line because I need to wait for an employee to be there to do something I can do faster. As result, we have terrible service with an expensive price. Jobs must exist by market demand, artificially creating jobs is the worst thing a country can do. Every law had good intentions, it's always the indirect side effects that cause problems.
- Spooky23 9y agoI don't think these things are very much related. I live in New York... New Jersey has mandatory pump attendants and the prices are all on-par or cheaper than surrounding states. For all of the bellyaching, i don't think that people are as expensive as they seem.
- mathattack 9y agoHow much of that is due to taxes?
- AlgorithmicTime 9y agoNot much, our gas tax went up massively last year and is now near the top of state gas taxes.
- downrightmike 9y ago18.4 cents per gallon (3.75 liters or so) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_State...
- nvivo 9y agoHere in Brazil I know from published statistcs that atendees make up about 25% of the running costs of a fuel station. Mostly due to taxes over the payroll.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- douche 9y ago> They could for example say that pumping gas at the station is a job that requires training and only qualified personnel can do this job Please, don't encourage them to spread that hellish concept out of New Jersey.
- will_pseudonym 9y agoAnd Oregon.
- hueving 9y agoThey would be better off paying people to dig ditches and refill them. Making idiotic middle-man positions like gas pumpers just slows down innovation in industries and pisses off people who don't like to be restricted from performing their own trivial tasks.
- throwaway7645 9y agoOregon does this I believe, them or Washington. While on vacation I was always irate at the pump because I had to wait for someone that started the pump then ran off, so if it stopped prematurely and early we had to wait for that person to run back.
- CydeWeys 9y agoThe canonical example of a state that does this is New Jersey. I don't live there, but I've driven through it on occasion, and it's always jarring to suddenly not be allowed to do so something so basic (and that you've done thousands of times) as inserting a gas nozzle into a fueling port and depress the trigger.
- rusanu 9y agoIs Oregon. I still remember my shock at the pump station after being told that I'm not qualified to handle explosive substances (gas)...
- nmcfarl 9y agoOregon. But we just loosened the rules a teny tiny bit, so if it's after hours, in a rural area you can do it yourself: http://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/2015/12/29/drivers-rural-oregon-start-pumping-their-own-gas/78010610/ http://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/2015/12/29/driver...
- ylem 9y agoNJ does this--though the prices at the pump are still lower than in a number of nearby states. I think there have been occasional attempts to change the law so that people can pump their own gas, but it has always failed.
- tobltobs 9y agoThere are enough possibilities to create jobs which actually make sense. Like increasing the mineral oil tax and improve the run down infrastructure with the additional tax revenue.
- jimmywanger 9y agoHave you seen Venezuela lately? The problem with socialism is that sooner or later, you run out of money to steal. The end result of your logic is basic income. Which is, no matter how useless you are, you still get food and shelter. Food and shelter is not a human right.