3 ms·

First you say: > The economic churn. More churn, > more prosperity because we are > creating movement of spending > money that came from capital to > keep aliv

First you say: > The economic churn. More churn, > more prosperity because we are > creating movement of spending > money that came from capital to > keep alive a thriving economy. And then you claim that taxing the rich will not work. Why would that also be churn? If they have to divest, sell things or buys things that is churn. You welfare state argument, falls flat when you consider the high taxes for people located in Nordic countries.

jelliclesfarm 6y ago
Let me try. Enumerating because it’s easier for me: 1. High taxes on the rich won’t work as well as tax cuts as long as job creation is incentivized. Trickle down economics is based on the notion that as corporations are encouraged to participate in job creation by way of tax cuts, more people in the economy will be employed. 2. When people are employed, they spend. When unemployment index falls, consumer spending increases. 3. Hence tax cuts ..across the board..increases employment and consumer spending. This has a stimulating effect on the economy. Because there is a cycle of buying goods and services. 4. Rich man gets a tax rebate for buying a yacht as business expenditure. The yacht guy makes a sale. He gets a commission. A yacht gets sold and those who worked on it keep their jobs. He spends money decorating the yacht, he spends money on it. He parks it somewhere, he pays fees and someone keeps their job. He hires a chef. Chefs buys food. 5. One rich person’s conspicuous consumption creates a chain reaction of spending and buying leading to a little froth in the economy. 6. Vs if he paid it as tax. How will the govt create jobs? What kind of jobs will they create? Where is the market for fancy birthday cakes and expensive body spa treatments when tax money is distributed to pension funds, road improvements and social services. The state ends up being a nanny providing the basic necessities. The govt by its nature cannot engage in production or businesses. It cannot create consumer goods. It cannot offer services. The govt cannot run a restaurant or a hotel. Businesses do this. They need capital for this. 7. An economic transaction needs two parties, the buyer and the seller. The more economic transactions occur, the more thriving the economy. So more spending per person, more economic transactions. But without injection of money in the economy through wages, none of this will occur. 8. Taxes tie up capital. It doesn’t allow for movement of capital, transformation of capital into goods and services or encourage consumption of goods and services. 9. I don’t know what you mean by ‘divest’? You can’t buy or sell without jobs. If you keep taxing people, they won’t spend. If you keep taxing only the rich, consumer spending won’t increase. Because it goes to the govt, only welfare spending be increased. 10. Businesses are started by those with capital. It is started to generate profit and jobs. I don’t know if you have run a business, but every business needs liquidity and credit lines. They need capital. When capital is sent as taxes, businesses can’t thrive and jobs won’t be created and consumer spending will dwindle. 11. My ‘welfare argument’ doesn’t fail because ‘Nordic countries’ with mixed economies have much smaller population than capitalist countries like USA. Norway’s population is 5 million vs America’s 350 something. California’s population is 40 million. Also..Norway has massive oil reserves and is a rich country. The middle class is highly taxed and the rich are few. I don’t know how much I can explain but companies there have intricate shell corporation structure that you will have to work very hard to even find out who actually owns some of the companies. Google for Panama Papers and Mossack Fonesca for the last news item about shell corporations. It’s not that difficult and many do it. 12. Generally, my rule of thumb is that as countries become more populous, they should lean towards capitalism. Less populous countries can provide everyone with social welfare net, but the same policy would kill economic activity in a big country. You can’t keep 100s of millions of people under welfare. A kick ass economy and consumer spending is like the pump motor that will keep aerating the pond. You need that. Welfare states will eventually become duller and duller and die. Most Nordic countries are mixed economies but are also rich due to oil etc. I don’t know where you are from, but while quality of life is better in Europe, economically it is depressed compared to America. We are consumerists here. Across the pond, everything you buy will extract enough taxes that it is almost 40-70% more than what it costs in America. And I am not talking cars or smart phones. Compare the cost of a bottle of beer in Norway vs America. I think that’s illustrative enough.

jelliclesfarm 6y ago

Let me try. Enumerating because it’s easier for me: 1. High taxes on the rich won’t work as well as tax cuts as long as job creation is incentivized. Trickle down economics is based on the notion that as corporations are encouraged to participate in job creation by way of tax cuts, more people in the economy will be employed. 2. When people are employed, they spend. When unemployment index falls, consumer spending increases. 3. Hence tax cuts ..across the board..increases employment and consumer spending. This has a stimulating effect on the economy. Because there is a cycle of buying goods and services. 4. Rich man gets a tax rebate for buying a yacht as business expenditure. The yacht guy makes a sale. He gets a commission. A yacht gets sold and those who worked on it keep their jobs. He spends money decorating the yacht, he spends money on it. He parks it somewhere, he pays fees and someone keeps their job. He hires a chef. Chefs buys food. 5. One rich person’s conspicuous consumption creates a chain reaction of spending and buying leading to a little froth in the economy. 6. Vs if he paid it as tax. How will the govt create jobs? What kind of jobs will they create? Where is the market for fancy birthday cakes and expensive body spa treatments when tax money is distributed to pension funds, road improvements and social services. The state ends up being a nanny providing the basic necessities. The govt by its nature cannot engage in production or businesses. It cannot create consumer goods. It cannot offer services. The govt cannot run a restaurant or a hotel. Businesses do this. They need capital for this. 7. An economic transaction needs two parties, the buyer and the seller. The more economic transactions occur, the more thriving the economy. So more spending per person, more economic transactions. But without injection of money in the economy through wages, none of this will occur. 8. Taxes tie up capital. It doesn’t allow for movement of capital, transformation of capital into goods and services or encourage consumption of goods and services. 9. I don’t know what you mean by ‘divest’? You can’t buy or sell without jobs. If you keep taxing people, they won’t spend. If you keep taxing only the rich, consumer spending won’t increase. Because it goes to the govt, only welfare spending be increased. 10. Businesses are started by those with capital. It is started to generate profit and jobs. I don’t know if you have run a business, but every business needs liquidity and credit lines. They need capital. When capital is sent as taxes, businesses can’t thrive and jobs won’t be created and consumer spending will dwindle. 11. My ‘welfare argument’ doesn’t fail because ‘Nordic countries’ with mixed economies have much smaller population than capitalist countries like USA. Norway’s population is 5 million vs America’s 350 something. California’s population is 40 million. Also..Norway has massive oil reserves and is a rich country. The middle class is highly taxed and the rich are few. I don’t know how much I can explain but companies there have intricate shell corporation structure that you will have to work very hard to even find out who actually owns some of the companies. Google for Panama Papers and Mossack Fonesca for the last news item about shell corporations. It’s not that difficult and many do it. 12. Generally, my rule of thumb is that as countries become more populous, they should lean towards capitalism. Less populous countries can provide everyone with social welfare net, but the same policy would kill economic activity in a big country. You can’t keep 100s of millions of people under welfare. A kick ass economy and consumer spending is like the pump motor that will keep aerating the pond. You need that. Welfare states will eventually become duller and duller and die. Most Nordic countries are mixed economies but are also rich due to oil etc. I don’t know where you are from, but while quality of life is better in Europe, economically it is depressed compared to America. We are consumerists here. Across the pond, everything you buy will extract enough taxes that it is almost 40-70% more than what it costs in America. And I am not talking cars or smart phones. Compare the cost of a bottle of beer in Norway vs America. I think that’s illustrative enough.