Taxing the rich is good for the economy, IMF says - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Nomystik;44077772]Ok, look at it this way, if there is a person has low skills and the minimum wage is set at $7.25, will he get hired? Most likely not because his productivity does not reach the minimum wage levels of $7.25, businesses will not hire people who produce less than this. There are plenty of jobs going around that pay more than $7.25 an hour in America, you know businesses don't have to pay them more than $7.25 but if they did, they would quit and find a better job. Remember, if someone has low skills again and is working at Mcdonalds for example and earning $7.25 an hour is probably getting the best deal. Yes it sucks he is working at Mcdonalds but the fact that he is unable to find work at other places that offer a better deal. Are you implying that you rather people on welfare instead? How do rich people harm the economy? You think wealth is one big pie and 40% of the pie is just handed to the 1% like that?[/QUOTE] People would have to be on welfare if they earn less than $7.25 an hour. My base rate at work is just under $14 an hour (the minimum wage for my age is $11 an hour) but I still receive rent assistance because between $180 rent for a single bedroom unit, $60 in groceries, $50 in petrol, $20 contribution to electricity bills etc etc I'm paying around $350 every week but I'm only guaranteed for $200 every week from work. I often make up to $600 every week from being called in so often (apparently I'm very reliable), but with going back to uni full-time next week I'm going to need that safety net. Same thing for a lot of other people already near the minimum wage level. High income earners literally do harm the economy. The richer a person gets, the higher that their marginal propensity to save increases, and that's less circulation of money within the economy. But I won't go on a witch hunt against the rich, just that they should shoulder a little more of the tax burden because they can handle it more than low income earners can, and it won't be as harmful to the economy that way.

[QUOTE=deltasquid;44077787]I really don't understand. Are you saying a company will stop hiring people if the minimum wage goes up, and would rather bankrupt themselves trying to find skilled workers? Are you saying a person who flips burgers for 7,25 dollars an hour is necessarily worse at it than someone who does a 10 dollar an hour job? And rich people harm the economy when they hoard money instead of investing it. Using this money for education instead of letting him buy a solid golden house or whatever the hell you're supposed to buy when you reach the 75% income tax bracket, or raising the minimum wage so the poor can buy more stuff (which in turn makes businesses turn a profit), is a hell of a lot more efficient. The pie can grow or shrink, but right now we're giving pie to people who aren't hungry any more while someone starves at the other end of the table.[/QUOTE] I am simply saying that the minimum wage reduces the demand for labor and that productivity is the key for pushing up wages. Look at Singapore, they have no minimum wage, is it full of poor people? Nope, they have 1.8% unemployment and the average person earns more than the average American/Australian. If someone is getting paid $10 an hour, it means he is being more productive than the bloke on $7.25, if the minimum wage increases, that's less demand for labor so more businesses will be looking to cut full time workers to part time or cutting off employees, either way is not good.

[QUOTE=Nomystik;44077782]New fortunes are created everyday. Savings also help the economy, giving banks more capital to loan out to businesses. Cheap money from the federal reserve on the other hand...[/QUOTE] I'm starting to think you don't know what you're talking about. It is first years economics at university, hell probably high school economics, that savings do not help the economy.

[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] In my opinion you do have a point, being taxed at over 50% implies that the government did over half the work... however in this case it's only for the revenue [I]above 1 million already[/I], so I think it's acceptable

[QUOTE=Antdawg;44077841]I'm starting to think you don't know what you're talking about. It is first years economics at university, hell probably high school economics, that savings do not help the economy.[/QUOTE] So you rather the federal reserve in America pump/print money into the American banks so they can loan it out to people? Edit: savings in the long term do finance businesses, please tell me all about the economics you know,

Workers are consumers and more money to spend is good for the economy. Employers have historically always paid the least amount possible to their workers, minimum wage or not and easing up on abuse reducing regulations would just be a step backwards. Another case of reasoning how "what's good for me is good for everyone" while it may not be entirely true. Taxes only distribute wealth, the money will be spent either way. A poor person may actually require the money for necessities while it's only a little bit of extra for a rich one. The downward spiral nature of poorness is also one reason why there must be some social security. [QUOTE=Nomystik;44077782]New fortunes are created everyday. Savings also help the economy, giving banks more capital to loan out to businesses. Cheap money from the federal reserve on the other hand...[/QUOTE] The great depression for one showed how savings do not translate directly into investments. One mans spending is another mans income, when spending falls there will also be few reasons (and limited capital) for investment because no one is spending.

It's this kind of thinking that can get ideas of a corporate exodus floating about. Also what's with all the [i]" boo hoo I can only buy three ferraris instead of four boo hoo"[/i] in this thread? The Majority of "rich" people with massive amounts of money have gotten there via hardwork, a few have done it through lucky breaks, and then there's the one's who have inherited the fruits of their parents hard work, either way it's [b]their[/b] money. Also if you want to tax anyone tax churches and religions for once, if you're going to make this a case of homing in on people with higher incomes then cut the shit and make nobody exempt from this.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;44073239]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.[/QUOTE] That's why you have government interference in certain aspects. Regulate what companies are and are not allowed to do to prevent them from being greedy fucknuggets without outright commanding what the economy does every day.

It's frightening to think that there are people so delusional that they still believe trickle-down economics works.

[QUOTE=Wizards Court;44072782]but, but, we should have a flat tax, only that way can taxes be fair, otherwise the rich won't be able to have 3 Ferraris. [sp]certain folks in this very forum believe this is a good idea(unsurprisingly)[/sp][/QUOTE] Most of the posters, myself included, are lower-middle-class or below. Except garry because his fat ass is rolling in 500,000$ bills.

[QUOTE=ZakkShock;44078788]Most of the posters, myself included, are lower-middle-class or below. Except garry because his fat ass is rolling in 500,000$ bills.[/QUOTE] Specifying subsections of your income class in America is becoming increasingly pointless. The distinctions are already largely arbitrary. It's probably more accurate to say, "I'm slightly more or less poor than other poor people!"

So is there a cap to how much the government can tax you once you exceed a certain amount of income? Cause the more I make in my paycheck the more I get taken out. That's what I would expect to happen if I was making more money too. Maybe I'm wrong and this already happens... But if not it's a fair thing to do and the rich need to stop bitching. Go buy 2 houses instead of 3 like someone else said, you will survive without that 3rd house LOL. If this is basically removing that cap then let's do it :D when I'm out of college and make more money I'm not going to bitch cause this is fair. But most of us aren't as selfish/entitled as the rich. Who gives a damn if they donate to charities, that's just so they can get a tax write off.

So, I'm near literally retarded probably, but couldn't you like, mandate all obscenely rich people to spend their obscene amounts of money above a certain point? Even as I'm typing this I know there's a lot of shit wrong with that but I can't put my finger on it. it won't go directly into the "rich man taxes" but the money will circulate and come out of the wages of everyone else, which are now going to be obscenely high as well. help I know nothing of economy

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;44078819]Specifying subsections of your income class in America is becoming increasingly pointless. The distinctions are already largely arbitrary. It's probably more accurate to say, "I'm slightly more or less poor than other poor people!"[/QUOTE] I think most Facepunchers are generally middle class, both in wealth, and in views, outlook, and habits.

[QUOTE=Mr.95;44078558]It's this kind of thinking that can get ideas of a corporate exodus floating about. Also what's with all the [i]" boo hoo I can only buy three ferraris instead of four boo hoo"[/i] in this thread? The Majority of "rich" people with massive amounts of money have gotten there via hardwork, a few have done it through lucky breaks, and then there's the one's who have inherited the fruits of their parents hard work, either way it's [b]their[/b] money. Also if you want to tax anyone tax churches and religions for once, if you're going to make this a case of homing in on people with higher incomes then cut the shit and make nobody exempt from this.[/QUOTE] Its actually the United States money on loan to them but thats ok. Like I said earlier in the thread, tax the capital gains, not income. You'll see a big difference in response.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;44079018]So, I'm near literally retarded probably, but couldn't you like, mandate all obscenely rich people to spend their obscene amounts of money above a certain point? Even as I'm typing this I know there's a lot of shit wrong with that but I can't put my finger on it. it won't go directly into the "rich man taxes" but the money will circulate and come out of the wages of everyone else, which are now going to be obscenely high as well. help I know nothing of economy[/QUOTE] we would probably end up with a situation akin Louis XIV onward(we all know how well that went), because the average guy is still getting less and less money, and now he has to watch rich folks lavishly spending their shit, french revolution anyone?

[QUOTE=Wizards Court;44079084]we would probably end up with a situation akin Louis XIV onward(we all know how well that went), because the average guy is still getting less and less money, and now he has to watch rich folks lavishly spending their shit, french revolution anyone?[/QUOTE] Where does the money go then though? If the rich folk indulge in shittonnes of shit, then they're buying shittonnes of shit. That money goes to the working man doesn't it?

[QUOTE=EcksDee;44079096]Where does the money go then though? If the rich folk indulge in shittonnes of shit, then they're buying shittonnes of shit. That money goes to the working man doesn't it?[/QUOTE] er... no? unless you also apply exorbitant taxes on luxury stuff(which is one of the things suggested by Adam Smith), but since the rich have an aversion to paying taxes, i don't see how it would be any different from just doing what the IMF is suggesting anyway.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;44079096]Where does the money go then though? If the rich folk indulge in shittonnes of shit, then they're buying shittonnes of shit. That money goes to the working man doesn't it?[/QUOTE] Some of it...

[QUOTE=EcksDee;44079096]Where does the money go then though? If the rich folk indulge in shittonnes of shit, then they're buying shittonnes of shit. That money goes to the working man doesn't it?[/QUOTE] That money usually goes to corporations. I doubt a millionaire is buying hundreds of hot dogs every day from the local hot dog stand to support the guy working there.

[QUOTE=Wizards Court;44072694]they're going to have to buy one less yacht, how horrible. [IMG]http://img.pandawhale.com/post-8744-Woody-Harrelson-Crying-Money-g-tvLk.gif[/IMG] is there no justice in this world won't someone think of the rich[/QUOTE] Being rich myself, I approve of this post. :v: Haven't had such a good laugh in ages.

Who'd have thunk it, eh? Fighting the dragons and raiding their troves would bring in more gold. Sadly they're dangerous beasts to battle even without firey breath.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;44078774]It's frightening to think that there are people so delusional that they still believe trickle-down economics works.[/QUOTE]It's continuously stunning how people will argue against and vote against their own well-being and that of the vast majority of people in general.

Has more than me = deserves to have less i knew FP was super liberal but i didn't expect it to be so militant "one less mansion hurr durr"

It's not all about economics. Inequality is just bad for democracy, as the inordinately wealthy are usually the ones controlling public policy. And people really need to stop equating socialism with liberalism/welfare state. There's some overlap, but socialism=worker control over means of production. The liberal welfare state was an attempt to stem socialism. It's really ridiculous how so many people think liberalism=far left.

[QUOTE=G71tc4;44080270]Has more than me = deserves to have less i knew FP was super liberal but i didn't expect it to be so militant "one less mansion hurr durr"[/QUOTE] Liberalism is like the exact opposite of fucking socialism. Learn your politics. Also none of this is "deserves to have less", but rather "doesn't need nor deserve to have a few millions on the bank account, sitting around being wasted, while people need both a full-time job and welfare to survive"

[QUOTE=ThreePennyJim;44080393]It's not all about economics. Inequality is just bad for democracy, as the inordinately wealthy are usually the ones controlling public policy. And people really need to stop equating socialism with liberalism/welfare state. There's some overlap, but socialism=worker control over means of production. The liberal welfare state was an attempt to stem socialism. It's really ridiculous how so many people think liberalism=far left.[/QUOTE] you're correct, with the exception of "liberal welfare state", redistribution of wealth is a socialist policy, its one of the core ideas of socialism lol, its just that folks tend to assume that socialism is everything bad ever, but honestly i would be happy if this became a policy governments around the globe strived towards it, no matter what name its given.

[QUOTE=G71tc4;44080270]Has more than me = deserves to have less i knew FP was super liberal but i didn't expect it to be so militant "one less mansion hurr durr"[/QUOTE] It's not about them "deserving to have less," it's about everybody else deserving to have more. What justice in there in a small handful of elite holding the vast majority of wealth in the country while the so-called "middle class" can't even afford health care or education without going deep into debt, and while the huge number of lower-class Americans struggle just to pay the bills and keep food on the table? Never mind mansions or yachts or fancy cars, they'd be happy just to afford the basic costs of living. If the lower classes of America were able to live with the basic comforts and necessities of life, I'd be fine with the rich people being as rich as they are, but they can't, because all the wealth in this country is held by the super-rich. So yes, I'm perfectly fine with the Johnny Moneybags of the world having "one less mansion" if it means the rest of the country can actually keep a roof over their heads.

I'm all for making things more balanced but taking 75% of what they earn is too much. You're literally taking most of the money that they make, it's not fair despite whatever you may think. There are other ways such as taking away subsidies.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;44072734]Before anyone jumps to conclusions, they aren't saying that simply increasing taxes on the rich is going to improve the economy. They are saying that redistributing wealth via taxation can boost growth, but I'm assuming what they mean by that is reducing taxes on low-earners and recovering that lost income through increased taxes on high-earners. Which makes sense really. Poorer people have a higher marginal propensity to consume, and if taxes are reduced so that a low-income working man gets an extra $20 every week, he's going to spend most of that $20 rather than save it. Meanwhile if you have a multi-millionaire and you increase his tax burden a little bit, he's still going to be consuming the exact same amount as before. He just won't be able to save up as much money, but that difference will be marginal to him at the most if the tax increase is not extreme, hence why his consumption won't go down. It's about the circulation of money that creates growth.[/QUOTE] This is exaclty why people who say increasing minimum wage will increase the cost of living, cause business to go bust, and be bad for the economy are fucking stupid. Increasing the minimum wage does exactly what this article mentions. Its actually good for the economy, because it allows low-earners more money to put into the system which means more money is being spent which means the economy is healthier and more profitable for everyone. This is EXACTLY the same type of thinking that brought us out of the great depression - the government gave heavy tax breaks to low earners while doing to opposite to high earners. This made the distribution of wealth still in favor of the rich, but the low-earners (those who actually drive the economy) had more money to spend into the system. The only people the minimum wage increase doesn't benefit, are the top 1% who can maximize their earnings by keeping everyone under them as low as possible. Also, any business that will go under by having to pay extra for minimum wage increases wasn't being ran well in the first place and was likely to go bust anyways. Its also a common misconception that increasing the minimum wage increases inflation, when this isn't true at all. A large majority of services/goods/etc do not rely on minimum wage labor, and minimum wage increasing is a by product of inflation that has already happened NOT the cause itself. Inflation only happens because of one thing: printing money. When the government prints more money and puts it into the system, it reduces the value of the dollar. Same thing happens the greater the debt a country is in. That is how inflation happens. The proof is looking at all the previous times that the minimum wage increase happened - it was always the result of inflation, not the cause, and it never caused prices to dramatically jump up anywhere. The only reason why the minimum wage is so abysmally low now is because corporate lobbysts make the most money when their low-level labor can get paid as low as possible. Even though in the long run, almost everyone (include "JOB CREATORS") will benefit from the increased money flow caused by higher minimum wages.