I’m asking you whether eleven guys spending $500,000 total creates as much demand and as many jobs as the one guy spending $500,000. In other words, does the economy care from where the dollars come as long as the dollars flow? If so (or not) how come?
1.) I might. I’d need to see a cite on whether he was actually putting that much money into the economy. It seems like a fair assumption to make, but common sense has failed me before. You don’t need to provide me with a cite by this by the way, because it’s invalidated by point 2.
2.) Even if I didn’t disagree, I feel that’s the wrong question to ask. The question I was really asking was: do eleven guys with more-or-less equal shares of $500,000 spend/invest more of it than one guy with $500,000? I have some economic theory and empirical evidence that say ‘yes’, but I’m willing to look at counter-cites.
I bet this dumbass feels really inferior to the Tea Party Congressman that has $500k leftover.
Seriously, when are these shitstain Tea Party freaks going to realize that making as much money as possible and “optimizing” profit margins is not the be-all and end-all of human existence, that the measure of a person’s character is based on how they treat other people, including those less fortunate than themselves, and the rush for more! more! more! is tacky and paradoxically declasse?
Dude, making the tax code a bit flatter would be an** improvement** at this point. Right now income and taxes paid as a percentage of income are inversely proportional q.v. Warren Buffett and his secretary.
I think this comes from a general disagreement about how much the society around you contributes to wealth. Every one of his 500 employees uses public services. Without those public services, they may or may not have been able to be his employees and help him make a lot of money. Without the roads they would be unable to work for him. Without them, he would not be able to boast a profit margin worth that much in the first place, or even come close. I feel that because of the very large part that society played in making him rich, he has the responsibility to pay more back to society than, say, the guy making 12k a year working at one of his sub shops. That said, I recognize that this is very much a “difference of opinion” thing; I just want to show you where I’m coming from.
That majority (the approximately 50% of Americans who don’t earn enough money to qualify for income tax) would almost certainly gladly overlook the “I lose everything past $250k” part of the bargain and focus on the “I get $250k per year!” part. Remember, these are people getting by on 1/10th of that. In my case (I asked my mother and it turns out that it’s considerably less than I assumed), 1/15th to 1/20th of that–we make do with about 12,000€ after taxes per year, and I would instantly trade places with him, even if it meant giving up everything past the first 250k I earn before feeding my family. I don’t think anyone else who is stuck in an economic situation like mine wouldn’t.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t advocate a 100% tax rate at any point, as it truly removes the incentive of getting more rich (whereas even a 99% tax rate doesn’t truly remove said incentive). I just want to point out how fucked up it is for him to be complaining about getting his taxes raised on income that probably goes into savings at a rate most Americans can only dream of. I’d kill to be in his situation. Most people I know would too.
And again: I really wonder how much this guy has earned directly from society and those around him, and why giving back to those people is so unreasonable.
I used to spend way to much time at one particular Subway, my friends worked there. At no time were there more than 6-8 employees, including the owner who worked the day shift. 500 employees is a whole fucking lot of Subways.
This was in New Jersey’s fourth largest city (by population), Elizabeth, in one of its nicer neighborhoods Elmora.
So when the Koch brothers give a million dollars to the Americans for Crunchy Goodness, which bills itself as an non-partisan education foundation, which spends all its time looking for tame academics to spew slanted “studies” to foist upon the media…
They get a tax break. Now, I don’t know that, just now thought of it, sparked by Crow’s input above.
And you get to decide whether I’m adding to the conversation? Gosh, that sounds fair.
The discussion was about creating jobs and contributing to society. You said the we need more people like him. I replied:
My point was that with him creating jobs that pay, on average, $12,000 per year, more people like that would be something less than an untrammeled delight. Yes, among his 500 employees may be a few making a great deal more than that, which means the rest are making somewhat less.[sup]*[/sup]
See, I do know how averages work.
While it’s not necessarily the case, I think it’s probably safe to say that the eleven people would probably spend more of the 500k. I don’t think one can make any guess as to which wold invest more. But the closer you are to just getting by the less you can invest. It’s clear that the single guy can save and invest more.
On the other hand, if we have no guys with 500k, we have many fewer jobs, so I’m not sure what the point of this really is.
Yes. But what is the point? You’re just trying to make this guy look bad by implying that all he does is create $12,000 a year jobs at Subway. And while some people are no doubt making less, you seem to assume that’s a bad thing. The reality is that some of his help is probably part time high school and college kids. For them, a hundred bucks a week may be fine. But you’re trying to do everything to make this guy out to be Mr. Potter. Or if you’re younger, Mr. Burns. He’s not. You know that talk you hear about “job creators”? Well. he’s actually one of them. He’s a huge benefit to society, contributing more than most.
But given the way you’ve presented this, I’ll dial back my ruling: You don’t seem to be an idiot. Just someone who made an idiotic point.
Fair enough. Yes, we differ. I don’t buy that he benefits more than the workers themselves. This argument never gets much traction with me because the roads, etc. are built regardless—in the hopes that they will be well used by productive people. He’s simply making use—perhaps, to your point, even better or more use—of that which is there for all of us.
I think you’re right. If you told me that you’d give me 1.1 billion dollars, but I’d have to pay a billion dollars in taxes, I’d jump at it. But if I felt I earned that money over time, that changes things.
I think you’re assuming that this guy is spending the 400K on cocaine or something. Would it change how you feel about this guy if he gave half of the 400k to charity? How about if he opened more business that hired more people who are unemployed and desperate for work? There are many ways that 400k could be put to use that would be great for society. I don’t get why you, or others, are so intent on seeing it as a bad thing.
While I think it would be an improvement, I don’t think you understand what happens with Buffet. There are two scenarios in which his income is taxed at a lower rate. One is where he hires an army of lawyers and he uses the tax code to lower what he owes. The other way he can be paying less of a percentage is if he doesn’t take a salary, thus avoiding income tax, and instead has his compensation be dished to him as long-term investment income. But the latter is not comparing apples and apples. It’s misleading.
And you’re trying to do everything to make this guy out to be Santa Claus. If the jobs he’s creating are barely above the poverty line, he’s not that huge a benefit to society.
Funny how a “small businessman” can be a “huge benefit” too.
So, I’ll be waiting a while for that apology, then?
Why is investing equally or more desirable than just outright spending it? If I rent a video + buy candy from Blockbuster that’s 10 dollars that the corporation and its workers are seeing right then. My saving that money until a future date on the hopes that I use the money to found a bank or sandwich shop or whatever A) may not happen at all B) may not actually be a solvent/profitable model and C) is not going to get anywhere unless Blockbuster employees actually have some cash to burn.
I think you’re getting the cart before the horse here. While it’s true that economies of scale have it such that it’s easier to create big businesses from scratch than small businesses:
1.) Dollar-for-dollar, do big-time startup investments provide more jobs than small businesses?
2.) Is there any guarantee that once the lower/middle class won’t engage in long-term investment pursuits like opening savings accounts and buying stock once their basic needs are met?
(You don’t need to answer the above two, it’s just food for thought)
3.) Do big businesses use the employees’ own personal wealth to feed their bottom line or do they use company assets? If it’s the latter, is it possible to keep taxes on corporations low (which I support, I don’t think they’re low enough and need to be cut) while increasing taxes on people with more personal wealth?
As I said above, supply-side economics do have their place. And when used in combination with demand-side economics they work like magic in growing the pie higher. However its implementation in the U.S. was faulty; instead of going directly to the upper class it should’ve gone to the corporate structure and had measures in place to ensure that the money wasn’t just getting funneled to the top.
Well, it turns out that all the non-Zeriel people in the world are going to run our lives the way we best see fit whether or not Zeriel likes it. Ýour post shows why a free market is a great idea, because otherwise you could impose your notions of value on everyone else.
With the current rate of cash-hoarding by businesses and the slowdown in investment, I don’t really think you can accurately say that. “The rich” can afford to move purchasing to a standstill and not affect their own standard of living, whereas the middle class is going to be more likely to save less and pick up a few more luxuries and the poor will likely spend it all on necessities.
Since jobs are by and large driven more by demand than supply, moving more money down the economic ladder will result in more money moving and more jobs in almost any scenario you can think of.
So far, more of the world agrees with me. Just look at who gets elected by and large–your side has the US somewhat less than half the time, and the third world.
Don’t worry, though. I’m sure someday you’ll find a job that your kids aren’t embarrassed to talk about when someone asks what their dad does.
For people who are able to stay above the poverty line, he is. And again, you’re assuming that every job he has is a low-paying one. We don’t know how many of his jobs pay 20k, 30k, 50k, 75k, 100k.
How is it funny?
I apologize. And I apologize for not including the apology in the previous post to you.
