Soldato
Why on earth would anyone impose such a rate.... That is robbery!
I may lead to mass migration!
So Nick Clegg is talking rubbish again.
- Thread starter robgmun
- Start date
Why on earth would anyone impose such a rate.... That is robbery!
I may lead to mass migration!
Soldato
They don' tknow how to do a capitalist government either so I am sureit would all balance out in the end ?
The "pulling demand forward" is actually the key point in all this.
We are now living in the beginning time of where that demand has been pulled from for the last few decades. WE have to create that surplus to pay back what was stolen. There is no-one left that our generation can steal demand from. Not future tax-payers (our kids), not the Chinese, not immigrants. All the demand wells have run dry. There's nobody dumb enough left to keep the ponzi scheme going at the bottom, the mathematics has become too obvious.
We are now living in the beginning time of where that demand has been pulled from for the last few decades. WE have to create that surplus to pay back what was stolen. There is no-one left that our generation can steal demand from. Not future tax-payers (our kids), not the Chinese, not immigrants. All the demand wells have run dry. There's nobody dumb enough left to keep the ponzi scheme going at the bottom, the mathematics has become too obvious.
This makes perfect sense; I guess the difficultly lies in determining at which point 'the rich' are 'over taxed'.
As the Wiki article states, "The actual existence and shape of the curve is uncertain and disputed" and "A hypothetical Laffer curve for any given economy can only be estimated and such estimates are controversial."
So in the first example from that Wiki article (73% in 1920s America) and in kwerk's example (75% in 2012 France) it's too high, but in the UK a few years ago, 50% didn't create a mass migration (even if a few people/companies left).
I suppose without knowing the tax bands and pre-tax allowances it's harder to judge.
Also, do they all just leave the country or find other ways of paying less tax?
Soldato
Not if that long-term "growth" (which, i'll remind you, we haven't seen much of) comes at the cost of current services and infrastructure.
Soldato
No - demand comes from the consumer. The farmer fulfils the demand. Again, you've got it ass-backwards. The surplus would rot and waste (or be worthless on the market) if there wasn't a demand for it.
Soldato
You think we've had a long term experiment since the crash? You're misjudging your scales.
Well I agree with him and I am far from left-wing. The threats of the super rich and the unions to remove their services and support for the country should be stamped on whereever they are found. How apologists excuse both so consistently is quite amazing.
The government cannot create demand. All it can do is steal demand.
Taxes - demand stolen from current citizens.
Debt/printing - demand stolen from future citizens.
Or in Greece's case you default and steal demand from foreigners.
The only place where this is a good thing is where there would otherwise be a private monopoly so the government becomes the lesser of 2 evils. Infrastructure (roads/ports/currency) and property rights (defense/legal system).
You want to do business in a country where you know you can actually deliver goods and trade with a stable currency, and you wont be invaded, and the local gang wont steal your wealth, and you can get recourse against fraudsters.
Everywhere else business is the lesser of 2 evils, because there can be competition and therefor efficiency.
Taxes - demand stolen from current citizens.
Debt/printing - demand stolen from future citizens.
Or in Greece's case you default and steal demand from foreigners.
The only place where this is a good thing is where there would otherwise be a private monopoly so the government becomes the lesser of 2 evils. Infrastructure (roads/ports/currency) and property rights (defense/legal system).
You want to do business in a country where you know you can actually deliver goods and trade with a stable currency, and you wont be invaded, and the local gang wont steal your wealth, and you can get recourse against fraudsters.
Everywhere else business is the lesser of 2 evils, because there can be competition and therefor efficiency.
Soldato
I was going to reply to this, but then i saw the username...
How does the consumer PAY for stuff? The farmer is supposed to work for free on credit, on the promise of future "growth"?
The consumer has to pay with something, like labour harvesting the crop, or shoeing his horses, or painting a picture the farmer would like to own, or sucking his ****.
Then the farmer pays them with enough food to eat plus some extra (surplus). That surplus becomes the consumer's wealth he can use as demand somewhere else. It has to be earned not promised/imagined.
Surplus -> wealth -> demand. Demand comes last not first.
Of course it is much more efficient when everyone uses a uniform minted currency instead of bartering. And the farmer knows criminals aren't going to steal his surplus produce from him. And he knows the government isn't going to steal it either.
You were going to say something above "growth" right?
Real "growth" = maximization of demand through the efficient competitive free market.
PermaBanned's "growth" = government stealing demand and ineptly commanding where it should go, and when that fails, stealing demand from the future to mask the problems.
Show me where I'm wrong.
here you go
http://courses.byui.edu/ECON_150/ECON_150_Old_Site/Lesson_03.htm
you seem to understand the WILLING part but not the ABLE part.
Soldato
I was going to say nothing about growth. I was going to say that either you have a completely different definition of 'demand' to everyone else or you fail to grasp what it means. Demand isn't something that can be 'stolen', it's a principle that always exists and can only really be manipulated through marketing.
If anything, there's no such thing as surplus wealth - just wealth an employer withholds ("steals", if you like) from an employee.
Man of Honour
Tax the rich more, sounds good to me.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Communism, sounds nice in principle, doesn't work in practice.
Please tell me what a "properly implemented communist government" looks like. I'm genuinely eager to know what kind of scran I can look forward to in the Gulag for moaning about how **** it will be.
Soldato
What on earth are you smoking? Can I have some?
Nobody in their right mind starts a company with the idea of supplying something that is not in demand, and more importantly, consumers can't afford.
And, working on credit is *exactly* how new buisness is formed! They even invented a word for it, "investment". You secure funds to start by convincing a bank or investor that your idea is good enough to establish a growing company that can repay its debt. And how do you do that? By proving your product is wanted, and affordable to those that want it.
What you are suggesting is that even though nobody can afford my diamond encrusted chastity belts, if I make a ton of them, people will suddenly want to buy them. And no worries to start up costs, as tools and materials will appear out of thin air.
Soldato
It's not the same at all. Everyone in the UK has access to the BBC, only a few thousand have access to ocuk.