[QUOTE=Banhfunbags;44072957]In Democracy 3, when I raise taxes on the rich, they tend to leave the country and take their wealth and business with them.[/QUOTE]
which is hilarious badly made, as if rich folks would leave the US, the LARGEST market in the planet, one of the best places to be... you know, rich.
where the hell are they going to live? china? saudi arabia? russia? :v:
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44073010]Originally "trickle down economics" was some French economic policy in the 18th century. Their big problem was that they had loads of aristocrats with massive landed estates largely living off the interest of their stored fortunes and any rents they may have got off their tenants.
The idea was to encourage the aristocrats to spend their money, with it trickling downwards into the lower classes (thus improving their lot). Nowadays of course, we face largely the same problem. Either the rich ought to spend and invest their money, or the state should do it for them.[/QUOTE]
i'm honestly surprised to see free market worshiper, defending this.
You guys mean like how the middle aged couple that found $10Million worth of gold coins in their back yard is going to have to pay 47% of that in taxes?
I'm sorry, what I meant to say was "DAMN THOSE GREEDY RICH PEOPLE!"
[QUOTE=avincent;44072781]Hahahahahah this is what peasants actually believe.
You do realize the richer people are the more people like you they can hire right? Oh wait let's just tax them more that makes sense.[/QUOTE]
Honest question. Real talk. Have you ever read anything about economics, entrepreneurship or company law?
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;44073030]You guys mean like how the middle aged couple that found $10Million worth of gold coins in their back yard is going to have to pay 47% of that in taxes?
I'm sorry, what I meant to say was "DAMN THOSE GREEDY RICH PEOPLE!"[/QUOTE]
yes, thats TOTALLY common, something that happens every day really, i mean i just found a $50 million in gold coins that belonged to D. Pedro I.
[QUOTE=avincent;44072781]Hahahahahah this is what peasants actually believe.
You do realize the richer people are the more people like you they can hire right? Oh wait let's just tax them more that makes sense.[/QUOTE]
You sound like my dad.
He's often wrong.
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;44073012]i'm honestly surprised to see free market worshiper, defending this.[/QUOTE]
You must have a very narrow view of the world if you can see the world as consisting entirely of free market worshipers or socialists.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44073010] Either the rich ought to spend and invest their money, or the state should do it for them.
[/QUOTE]
who's to say they aren't though? Hard to get good statistics pertaining to that.
And personally I do not agree with state intervention like that.
[QUOTE=avincent;44072825]Yea, it's their fucking money. What gives the government the right to have more than half your fucking money?
You also realize a lot of their extra money goes to creating new jobs, building businesses, donating to charities etc. People don't just get rich and say oh fuck it I'm done, I wouldn't expect anyone in this thread to actually understand the bigger picture though.[/QUOTE]
I agree that no matter how rich someone is, that they should still be able to see the fruits of their labours. I'd cap the effective tax rate at 50%, but it's hard to work that around the tax bracketing system. But I don't think it's impossible.
But people need to stop believing this idea that more tax on the rich equals less jobs for the poor. As I said in a previous post, wages and salaries are paid for by the company, not by it's owners. Higher taxes on the rich does not affect the operating expenses of the company, as the company and its owners are separate entities. If the millionaire ran a sole proprietorship or is a partner of a partnership, you'd be right. But most businesses that make their owners millionaires are companies, which have that distinction between the firm and its owners.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;44073030]You guys mean like how the middle aged couple that found $10Million worth of gold coins in their back yard is going to have to pay 47% of that in taxes?
I'm sorry, what I meant to say was "DAMN THOSE GREEDY RICH PEOPLE!"[/QUOTE]
First of all, you really can't make up a fiscal policy based on fringe events like these. Secondly, would you complain if you found 5,3 million worth of gold coins in your garden? No? Then why do you complain if the government takes 4,7 million of your hypothetical 10 million and uses it so stimulate the economy?
(Hint: the answer is "blinding greed")
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44073010]Originally "trickle down economics" was some French economic policy in the 18th century. Their big problem was that they had loads of aristocrats with massive landed estates largely living off the interest of their stored fortunes and any rents they may have got off their tenants.
The idea was to encourage the aristocrats to spend their money, with it trickling downwards into the lower classes (thus improving their lot). Nowadays of course, we face largely the same problem. Either the rich ought to spend and invest their money, or the state should do it for them.
Alternatively, we can cut taxes on the poor, which would have the same effect.[/QUOTE]
Historically no state has every been good at investing money.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44073072]You must have a very narrow view of the world if you can see the world as consisting entirely of free market worshipers or socialists.[/QUOTE]
not the world, just you.
you know the guy who spends every single thread about economy defending the free market.
[QUOTE=Aman;44073074]who's to say they aren't though? Hard to get good statistics pertaining to that.
And personally I do not agree with state intervention like that.[/QUOTE]
And state intervention like that is what gets us out of depressions.
[QUOTE=avincent;44072781]Hahahahahah this is what [B]peasants [/B]actually believe.
You do realize the richer people are the more people like you they can hire right? Oh wait let's just tax them more that makes sense.[/QUOTE]Could you sound any more like an ass.
go figure, the periods of least wealth inequality in america were also the most prosperous and the periods of greatest wealth inequality were the worst periods in u.s. economic history. the 1960s was prosperous and the 1930s was god awful hmm took this long to prove there was a coralation
[QUOTE=Stents*;44073089]Historically no state has every been good at investing money.[/QUOTE]
Which is pretty strange because individuals tend to invest it even worse.
EDIT: to clarify, individuals tend to invest it really well if you consider personal gain as a measurement of success. Individuals investing money doesn't help the country in the long run as much as a coordinated effort by the government.
[QUOTE=Killer900;44073102]Could you sound any more like an ass.[/QUOTE]
remember this is also the guy who defended flat tax in the france thread.
[QUOTE=avincent;43346571]tax the big guy more = less jobs available to the small guy. Good job.. France?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Stents*;44073089]Historically no state has every been good at investing money.[/QUOTE]
Well minus places like (modern) China or Japan.
Plus the United States did pretty well at it during the 1860s through 1950s.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;44073030]You guys mean like how the middle aged couple that found $10Million worth of gold coins in their back yard is going to have to pay 47% of that in taxes?
I'm sorry, what I meant to say was "DAMN THOSE GREEDY RICH PEOPLE!"[/QUOTE]
Well yes, since as soon as they sell them the money is taxed as income, since it is income.
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;44073092]not the world, just you.
you know the guy who spends every single thread about economy defending the free market.[/QUOTE]
I defend the free market because markets are effective ways of allocating scarce resources.
Other systems such as gift economies or rationing are pretty crap.
A free market with a government imposing restrictions and stimulating positive trends is the best (or rather, least shitty) economical policy we have. Rationing sucks, a complete free market sucks even harder.
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;44073092]not the world, just you.
you know the guy who spends every single thread about economy defending the free market.[/QUOTE]
Cause it is a viable system...
It isn't like he is defending Stalin policies or something.
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;44073092]not the world, just you.
you know the guy who spends every single thread about economy defending the free market.[/QUOTE]
Sobotnik may advocate for market economies but that doesn't make him automatically a free market advocate. I don't know what Sobotnik actually believes, but if he is like me and leans down the path of Keynesian economics (I can't help it, my economics professors are all somewhere along that path as well) then he would understand that capitalism, without government interference, is a powerful and efficient machine, but he would also believe that capitalism isn't perfect like how we as humans aren't perfect, and he'd also believe that government interference in the economy is necessary from time to time.
You can be for the market economy, but you can also be for government intervention in that market as well.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;44073209]Sobotnik may advocate for market economies but that doesn't make him automatically a free market advocate. I don't know what Sobotnik actually believes, but if he is like me and leans down the path of Keynesian economics (I can't help it, my economics professors are all somewhere along that path as well) then he would understand that capitalism, without government interference, is a powerful and efficient machine, but he would also believe that capitalism isn't perfect like how we as humans aren't perfect, and he'd also believe that government interference in the economy is necessary from time to time.
You can be for the market economy, but you can also be for government intervention in that market as well.[/QUOTE]
Nail on head.
Sometimes I may deviate slightly depending on particular policies or areas, but roughly I am a Keynesian.
[QUOTE=deltasquid;44073172]A free market with a government imposing restrictions and stimulating positive trends is the best (or rather, least shitty) economical policy we have. Rationing sucks, a complete free market sucks even harder.[/QUOTE]
Problem is once government gets involved depending on what is done you run the razors edge between true free market capitalism and crony capitalism. Hence the US' scenario.
[QUOTE=Aman;44073197]Cause it is a viable system...
It isn't like he is defending Stalin policies or something.[/QUOTE]
The free market isn't viable, it assumes that everyone can act rationally (obviously this is impossible). It's a delusional term anyways. There is nothing free about a free market (well, aside from the freedom against government interference). Entrepreneurs are essentially slaves to whatever is demanded by society, nothing free about that.
no seriously though this is bullshit
it'll only stimulate the economy through the rich having to work harder to make the same amount for themselves, not because joe bloggs spends $20 on beer. that would just increase the amount of money in circulation, it doesn't mean the economy will definately see a boost.
i don't want the government to steal my hard earned money.
We can't tax the rich heavily that's socialism.
[QUOTE=Aman;44073197]Cause it is a viable system...
It isn't like he is defending Stalin policies or something.[/QUOTE]
i don't recall defending stalin's policies but hey.
[QUOTE=Ruski v2.0;44073289]no seriously though this is bullshit
it'll only stimulate the economy through the rich having to work harder to make the same amount for themselves, not because joe bloggs spends $20 on beer. that would just increase the amount of money in circulation, it doesn't mean the economy will definately see a boost.
i don't want the government to steal my hard earned money.[/QUOTE]
what you mean work harder, they'll still be fucking rich, just not utterly outrageously so.
[QUOTE=avincent;44072781]Hahahahahah this is what peasants actually believe.
You do realize the richer people are the more people like you they can hire right? Oh wait let's just tax them more that makes sense.[/QUOTE]
yeah because taxing the lower end of the spectrum with a higher tax rate is a good idea, you should probably get on out of here with that statement.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;44073332]Socialism is cool, yo.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, okay, [i]hitler[/i]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
