"Freedom" thread or something

JJLehto wrote: But just for sh*ts...llama, while it may be economically inefficient wouldn't it still be a good thing? I mean every single person (who wants to work) having a job? All the populace spending and saving, seems like it would be a positive, even though it'd be inefficient. Not that it matters, for the reasons that llama and doc gave (ironically!) there is always a natural unemployment rate. It's just not possible to dip below that, unless you want a state of continuous major war. If we get more neo cons back I'm sure they'll try!

I don't think that it would be a good thing. Naturally we don't want anyone to long-term unemployed, but short term unemployment is necessary for the growth of an economy, which is what leads to better living standards for the citizenry.

Suppose I'm an inventor and I've just come up with the elusive flying car that we've been dreaming of for so long. I need people to help me build it so that I can sell it and start making money, but since I'm a new entrant to the car manufacture business, I don't have a ton of money lying around to pay employees. If all the qualified auto workers are already holding down jobs at established firms, where they have job security, union wages and pensions, it's going to be hard for me to find anyone willing to take a chance on my startup to build a new product for less money and a possibility of going out of business. Because there is 100% employment, society loses out on the flying car, even though the long term benefits of the invention would have made everyone better off eventually.


Edited by thellama73 - December 09 2012 at 14:17

thellama73 wrote: JJLehto wrote: But just for sh*ts...llama, while it may be economically inefficient wouldn't it still be a good thing? I mean every single person (who wants to work) having a job? All the populace spending and saving, seems like it would be a positive, even though it'd be inefficient. Not that it matters, for the reasons that llama and doc gave (ironically!) there is always a natural unemployment rate. It's just not possible to dip below that, unless you want a state of continuous major war. If we get more neo cons back I'm sure they'll try! I don't think that it would be a good thing. Naturally we don't want anyone to long-term unemployed, but short term unemployment is necessary for the growth of an economy, which is what leads to better living standards for the citizenry. Suppose I'm an inventor and I've just come up with the elusive flying car that we've been dreaming of for so long. I need people to help me build it so that I can sell it and start making money, but since I'm a new entrant to the car manufacture business, I don't have a ton of money lying around to pay employees. If all the qualified auto workers are already holding down jobs at established firms, where they have job security, union wages and pensions, it's going to be hard for me to find anyone willing to take a chance on my startup to build a new product for less money and a possibility of going out of business. Because there is 100% employment, society loses out on the flying car, even though the long term benefits of the invention would have made everyone better off eventually.

People can barely drive on the freaking ground, and you want to put them in the air where they can cause even more damage? 

thellama73 wrote: Your inability to understand the point of a hypothetical example remains legendary.

It's called a joke Logan.  Have you heard of those before?  Or a sense of humor? 

Jokes are inefficient.
There is no time for insincerity, you could've used that time to make another .00001 cent

Of which Chester would have taxed the hell out.  

The Doctor wrote: Nah.  I just would have taxed the hell out of the CEO who made $10,000 in the time you made .00001 cents.  So there.

Jealousy is never a becoming feature. 

The Doctor wrote: Jealousy implies that I would actually want to be that rich.  Or a CEO.  Not interested.

You  begrudge financial success, even if it is honest.  I pity you for that.

Epignosis wrote: The Doctor wrote: Jealousy implies that I would actually want to be that rich.  Or a CEO.  Not interested.   You  begrudge financial success, even if it is honest.  I pity you for that.

And you worship the wealthy, even when that wealth was obtained by immoral means.  I pity you for that. 

@JJ.  I am aware of that.  Still no interest.  Life is far too short to spend it in pursuit of material wealth.  I have always wanted to be a writer though, but if it provided me a cool 50K a year, I'd be happy with that.


Edited by The Doctor - December 09 2012 at 19:36

Answered a few pages back. 

The Doctor wrote:   @JJ, I realize I never answered your question about what I define as wealthy.  It sort of depends on the context.  When I express utter disdain for the wealthy and say they made their money by immoral means, I am usually talking about the uber-wealthy.  However, two things should be noted with that.  That doesn't mean that I don't see people with only 250K of income a year as sometimes having power (as employers or landlords, etc.) that I don't think they should have.  And also, as a believer in a progressive tax system, I do believe the more money you make, the more you should have to pay in taxes, whether wealthy or not.  But defiining them as evil is usually reserved for people like the Kochs.

That is precisely what I expected, as I was the same way, and almost all leftists do the same.
The uber wealthy. As I've said before, I still have disdain for big bankers/investors/people who shuffle $ around without really contributing to society.

But man, most people really do work hard. The "wealthy" may be the enemy but what about the affluent? Or the well off?
How progressive a system do you want? Again, it doesn't need to be precise but I'd like numbers. Too progressive a system and you will be punishing those that truly earn their money. What about the small business owner? They put their lives on the line and struggle, and also maintain a local economy. Too proggy a tax system and you risk hurting them, and ironically help drive wal mart deeper into town!

Also, how would you personally like to do it? Tax the wealthy?
Income tax? Well they can pay themselves $1 a year. Tax on dividends/investing? They'll put in offshore accounts. Some just live off their wealth, how about the estate tax/inheritence tax? Again, they can buy smaller property/shift to various accounts.

One idea I had was just tax their business assets, regardless of location. If your business $$ is made in the US, tax that sh*t, even if they become a swiss citizen or its a foreigner. They will just move business out of the US! Now you're costing jobs.
Point being, the uber wealthy have always and will always find a way out. Is it right? No, but why keep fighting? Just lower all our good people's taxes! It sucks but let the 1% go, help the 99


Edited by JJLehto - December 09 2012 at 20:03