Sorry Everybody

[nzdbox]

...By eliminating services, increasing the national debt, and shifting the distribution of wealth more towards those who are already rich.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly.

If the taxes are lower, you also have to know that since the goverment isn't getting that much money from citizens as before, then it has to cut back on services. That means that everyone needs to get private services, wich cost a fixed amount, while taxes are more fair for everyone and are based on your income. So public services are better for poorer people, while richer people like private ones, because they have to pay a lot more for public services.

Of course, if the taxes are lowered and services aren't cut back, then where is the money for the services coming from? It's borrowed. Wich means further debt.

 

Now, this is all pretty much basic economy stuff. But from some threads I saw here I believe some people don't understand it, so I thought why not post it.

[tyjet3]

Ok... come on, i clearly said for a quick fix, NOT permenant. I agree that tax cuts takes money away from services, but tax cuts CAN and DO get a country out of a economic problem. History of econmics has PROVEN this. Show me evidence telling me otherwise!

[Marxist ßastard]

History of economics has proven that, yes, but only for well-executed tax cuts. Bush's tax cuts were quite artless in their goals to serve the rich more than any other financial class, and the economy suffered because of that.

[Malchik]

There was an article in the UK press yesterday suggesting that US interest rates are too low. That there is potential for a rapid inflationary rise as happened post Lawson in the UK if they are not raised soon. Were that to happen it is hard to see the tax cuts being any help to the average American.

[tyjet3]

I'm not saying I support Bush, I just agree with the econmic idealism. Yes, the tax cuts were dumb for Bush's reasons, but will still help the economy a little. Tax cuts on the rich are not that bad. Remember, the "rich" include companies that give the lower classes jobs. If companies have more money, they can give better services (healthcare, retirement plans, ect.) plus they can expand and give more jobs to different areas. It makes sense.

 

More money for companies=more jobs for public.

[Abramul]

Two words: Voodoo Economics

 

Did it work the first time? I wasn't there, so...

[Marxist ßastard]

http://mwsource.com/forum/style_images/mp-blue%5B1%5D/p_up.gif  tyjet3:

 

If companies have more money, they can give better services (healthcare, retirement plans, &c.) -- plus, they can expand and give more jobs to different areas.

 

You're ignoring three things:

1. [This point has been removed. Read the reply given by tyjet3 for the original version, and check my reply to his post if you desire an explanation.]
   
2. The richest one percent of the population cares more about perpetuating their status as the richest one percent than they do easing the workload on their employees or improving the economy overall. When there are two dozen people in a company doing the work of fifty former employees, and at reduced pay, to boot, because they're so worried about losing their jobs, the company's management considers that just as a cheaper workforce, not a situation that is putting a terrible burden on the economy and the remaining employees. They aren't going to start hiring single mothers from the town's Romanian district and give some vacation time and a raise to the existing workers using the money they gain; they're going to buy a boat and some monkey ninja hookers from the year 3022.
   
3. Companies no longer expand -- they outsource; that is, they won't expand for the purpose of offering employment in economically deprived regions of their native country, but will instead offer employment in regions abroad where laborers are available cheap, poorly trained, and in great quantity. Besides the obvious effect on the economy of their native country, this also puts the economy of the region they're outsourcing to in a state where the dependency on exported jobs is so high that their economy will fall apart in a way not seen since Argentina in the late 90s or the fall of Communism in Russia -- and this is an inevitability, since the job market will become saturated in those regions and employee standards will rise. Once again, instead of seeing their actions as bringing ruin on the economies of two nations, they see this as a nice way to keep their status as the richest one percent, and to get some monkey ninja hooker action in the process.
   

[tyjet3]

1.As nzdbox has pointed out, more services being offered exclusively by the private sector means a worsening gap between the rich and poor, and a dwindling middle class.

 

Majority, but not all. MANY services are still offered by companies. EVERY big company give their empolyees health benifits.

 

2.The richest one percent of the population cares more about perpatuating their status as the richest one percent than they do easing the workload on their employees or improving the economy overall. When there are two dozen people in a company doing the work of fifty former employees, and at reduced pay, to boot, because they're so worried about losing their jobs, the company's management considers that just as a cheaper workforce, not a situation that is putting a terrible burden on the economy and the remaining employees. They aren't going to start hiring single mothers from the town's Romanian district and give some vacation time and a raise to the existing workers using the money they gain; they're going to buy a boat and some monkey ninja hookers from the year 3022.

 

The taz cut should be on the COMPANY not the individuals. Individuals are selfish. Name one person who doesn't care about their own wellbeing over others and I'll give you prize. Don't try and pull out names like Budda or other people. EVERY person cares more about themself rather than others. It's not selfishness, it's human nature. Every living creature will do what they need to survive. But i do agree that companie owners need to be more compassionate about their employees.

 

The problem is not the existance of high power, the problem is the people that have the high power. Big difference.

[Marxist ßastard]

http://mwsource.com/forum/style_images/mp-blue%5B1%5D/p_up.gif  tyjet3:

 

http://mwsource.com/forum/style_images/mp-blue%5B1%5D/p_up.gif  Marxist ßastard:

 

As nzdbox has pointed out, more services being offered exclusively by the private sector means a worsening gap between the rich and poor, and a dwindling middle class.

 

Many services are still offered by companies. Every big company gives its employees health benefits.

 

When I posted that, I thought that you meant that companies offering more services to the public meant a better economy, not that companies offering more services to its employees would improve the economy. I have since edited my post to reflect this, because that point, though something you should certainly keep in mind, is not an effective argument. For a refutation of the notion that a company will use money to improve services to employees, which will in turn improve the economy, look to point 2 in my previous post.

 

http://mwsource.com/forum/style_images/mp-blue%5B1%5D/p_up.gif  tyjet3:

 

http://mwsource.com/forum/style_images/mp-blue%5B1%5D/p_up.gif  Marxist ßastard:

 

The richest one percent of the population cares more about perpetuating their status as the richest one percent than they do easing the workload on their employees or improving the economy overall.

 

The problem is not the existence of high power -- the problem is [that] the people that have the high power. [There is a] big difference.

 

There is not much difference until we can find some monkey ninja executives from the year 3022 to fill the positions of power.

 

http://mwsource.com/forum/style_images/mp-blue%5B1%5D/p_up.gif  tyjet3:

 

http://mwsource.com/forum/style_images/mp-blue%5B1%5D/p_up.gif  Marxist ßastard:

 

The company's management considers [the economy's current state] just as a [means of obtaining a] cheaper workforce, not a situation that is putting a terrible burden on the economy and the remaining employees.

 

Individuals are selfish. Name one person who doesn't care about their own well-being over others and I'll give you prize. Don't try to pull out names like Buddha or other people. Every person cares more about himself than others. It's not selfishness; it's human nature. Every living creature will do what it needs to survive.

 

The need for the perpetuation of one's status as the richest man alive is not equal to one's knack for self-preservation. While I will not disagree with you that the latter is human nature and can be suppressed, but not entirely overcome, the former is nothing if not the result of consumerism and other such blights brought upon us by the system of Capitalism functioning in the environment seen today.

 

http://mwsource.com/forum/style_images/mp-blue%5B1%5D/p_up.gif  tyjet3:

 

http://mwsource.com/forum/style_images/mp-blue%5B1%5D/p_up.gif  Marxist ßastard:

 

[Corporate executives] aren't going to start hiring single mothers from the town's Romanian district and give some vacation time and a raise to the existing workers using the money they gain; they're going to buy a boat and some monkey ninja hookers from the year 3022.

 

The tax cut should be on the company, not the individuals.

 

Where would idealism be without the word "should?"

[Abramul]

The need for the perpetuation of one's status as the richest man alive is not equal to one's knack for self-preservation.  While I will not disagree with you that the former is human nature and can be suppressed, but not entirely overcome, the former is nothing if not the result of consumerism and other such blights brought upon us by the system of Capitalism functioning in the environment seen today.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So the problem becomes this: How do we cause self-preservation to become more important to the rich than the accquisition of wealth? :shifty: