The Crisis of Capitalism Is a Lack of Capitalism

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

it is clearly the fault of the other party

Actually, it's always the fault of the "other" whatever. The other party. The other person. Etc.

And who should fix it? They should. Who should suffer? Thy should.

"We" is never something that people look to for sacrifice anymore. "Them" are those who are responsible. People want to be given jobs. They don't want to create jobs themselves, though.

Explain how you think society would work if everyone was self employed and no-one worked for anyone else.

Check above, where I wrote:

Quote

To make the most money, I have to make a lot of them. For that I need help, and I pay a cut to all people who help me with it. Like Bill Gates, I benefit myself. Like everyone else, they, too, benefit from his advances in software. The employees he has, the stockholders, all through benefitted from his imagination

The Wealth of Nations posits that a division of labor is crucial. The worker is as necessary as the employer for the building of wealth.

The worker is as necessary. No more. No less. Hence, take a look at workers demanding jobs. For that you must have employers. At this point, it seems there are more willing workers than there are employers. How does one fix that?

I propose that making it more difficult and more costly to be an employer is not a wise thing. Reading what I wrote above, a person enters business for the purpose of making money. In doing so that person puts personal risk – most businesses ultimately fail. Therefore, there must be some reward that the person finds is worthwhile for that.

By telling a prospective business owner “The better you do the more we’ll tax you” it removes the incentive. The risk/benefit balance is thrown off. Taking a 50k risk for a potential 5 year benefit of 500k is something that plenty of people would take. But what if that 50k risk will potentially only benefit $250k? Will a person quit her $50k per year job for the opportunity to make $250k in the next five years but runs the chance of being ruined? No. The risk is great and the payoff is no more. The chance of $500k? There’d be more takers. $1 million? Many more takers of that chance.

The incentive for being an entrepreneur has diminished. The cost/benefit analysis isn’t as high. And threats of lesser returns cause there to be less risk taking. Without the risk taking, there are fewer businesses. Fewer businesses mean fewer employers and fewer employees.

Which leads to less wealth generation.


Point? I'd like to see the argument move from, "Government! Create more jobs" to "Government! Encourage the creation of prospective employers!"

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

it is clearly the fault of the other party

Actually, it's always the fault of the "other" whatever. The other party. The other person. Etc.

And who should fix it? They should. Who should suffer? Thy should.

"We" is never something that people look to for sacrifice anymore. "Them" are those who are responsible. People want to be given jobs. They don't want to create jobs themselves, though.

Explain how you think society would work if everyone was self employed and no-one worked for anyone else.

Check above, where I wrote:

Quote

To make the most money, I have to make a lot of them. For that I need help, and I pay a cut to all people who help me with it. Like Bill Gates, I benefit myself. Like everyone else, they, too, benefit from his advances in software. The employees he has, the stockholders, all through benefitted from his imagination

The Wealth of Nations posits that a division of labor is crucial. The worker is as necessary as the employer for the building of wealth.

The worker is as necessary. No more. No less. Hence, take a look at workers demanding jobs. For that you must have employers. At this point, it seems there are more willing workers than there are employers. How does one fix that?

I propose that making it more difficult and more costly to be an employer is not a wise thing. Reading what I wrote above, a person enters business for the purpose of making money. In doing so that person puts personal risk – most businesses ultimately fail. Therefore, there must be some reward that the person finds is worthwhile for that.

By telling a prospective business owner “The better you do the more we’ll tax you” it removes the incentive. The risk/benefit balance is thrown off. Taking a 50k risk for a potential 5 year benefit of 500k is something that plenty of people would take. But what if that 50k risk will potentially only benefit $250k? Will a person quit her $50k per year job for the opportunity to make $250k in the next five years but runs the chance of being ruined? No. The risk is great and the payoff is no more. The chance of $500k? There’d be more takers. $1 million? Many more takers of that chance.

The incentive for being an entrepreneur has diminished. The cost/benefit analysis isn’t as high. And threats of lesser returns cause there to be less risk taking. Without the risk taking, there are fewer businesses. Fewer businesses mean fewer employers and fewer employees.

Which leads to less wealth generation.


Point? I'd like to see the argument move from, "Government! Create more jobs" to "Government! Encourage the creation of prospective employers!"

Funny that there was no shortage of employers creating jobs during the Clinton years when taxes were higher and CEO pay was lower in relation to their employees. It does seem to spoil your position.

And we have corporations apparently sitting on mountains of cash, so it's NOT that there isn't money available.

Maybe it's just that after 8 years of encouragement under GWB, the so-called "job creators" have just got greedier than they used to be.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,120]

>By telling a prospective business owner “The better you do the more we’ll tax you” it
>removes the incentive.

If we reduced the maximum tax bracket to 20% - we'd still be saying exactly the same thing.

Fortunately companies do not think that "the better we do the more they will tax us, thus we should not grow." They think "if we do better how much more will we make after taxes?" Thus as long as the tax structure is set up so increasing income means more money after taxes (which it is) there is still incentive to grow.

You, as a citizen, will pay more the more you make. That will be true even under a flat tax. Surely you would not see that as a disincentive.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

You, as a citizen, will pay more the more you make. That will be true even under a flat tax..

Mitt Romney already pays at a far lower rate than I do, of course. Probably lower than you and Amy too.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Funny that there was no shortage of employers creating jobs during the Clinton years when taxes were higher and CEO pay was lower in relation to their employees. It does seem to spoil your position.

You mean that period of time after Clinton cut the capital gains tax? That period? The same one that drove the unemployment rate to 4% before that bubble burst?

Does seem to spoil your position.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Quote

Funny that there was no shortage of employers creating jobs during the Clinton years when taxes were higher and CEO pay was lower in relation to their employees. It does seem to spoil your position.

You mean that period of time after Clinton cut the capital gains tax? That period? The same one that drove the unemployment rate to 4% before that bubble burst?

Does seem to spoil your position.

No, it doesn't. It still spoils yours. Taxes can be higher than they are now and the "job creators" still employ people.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Yes they can. Uncle Sam is always hiring.

But here's the question - why tax them? Because they make money or to forward some other policy?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Funny that there was no shortage of employers creating jobs during the Clinton years when taxes were higher and CEO pay was lower in relation to their employees.

Yeah, about that... according to a chart initially from AFL-CIO (unavailable now, imagine that), CEO pay ratio peaked at 525x... in 1999.

Quote

It does seem to spoil your position.

Yup, sure does spoil your position.

Quote

Maybe it's just that after 8 years of encouragement under GWB, the so-called "job creators" have just got greedier than they used to be.

Waiting to see how the Obama administration is going to fuck them over next.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

IT's also interesting that the job creators should somehow be expected to treat employees like charity cases. Compare the famed Buffett and his secretary. Buffet just can't handle how much he makes.

Plus - his public stance is a great way to help him earn back those tens of billions he lost.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

IT's also interesting that the job creators should somehow be expected to treat employees like charity cases. Compare the famed Buffett and his secretary. Buffet just can't handle how much he makes.

Plus - his public stance is a great way to help him earn back those tens of billions he lost.

Why don't you show us how unemployment was really high when taxes were higher, say during the last couple of years of St. Ronald Reagan's administration when the "job creators" wouldn't create jobs - according to your theory.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.