jacking up taxes on the rich don't give those who are not rich the tools to become more prosperous
Its been all over the news today that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. I think most will agree that a strong middle class is needed for stability and growth. Thats not really my question. I would like to take this issue on from a different angle. Or two angles.
1) Does anyone really care? If so why or why not.
2) If you do care then what can we do about it. One rule please, I want something new and different. I am not looking for the same old arguments. Please refrain from the "lower the taxes on the rich so they can hire the poor." and no "lets make it fair for everyone so that nobody suffers".
What I am looking for is a fresh idea.
Sure it does! You can jack up taxes on the rich and use that money to provide all sorts of tools for prosperity for the poor. That money could be used to improve education for the poor, to feed clothe and shelter the poor, to provide them with all the basics of life.
Ask the question, where is the middle class losing out. Look for the answer in the loss of manufacturing jobs.
We have been sending these jobs overseas for the last 20 years under the guise of "free trade". A lot of people have talked about the need for fair trade versus what we have now.
So there a number of things that we could do to keep jobs from moving overseas. We could put tariffs on more imported products to level the playing field.
For example we have minimum wage, environmental regs, safety regs etc. When we send jobs to a country that does not have environmental regs for example, that country has a competitive advantage over and above the lower cost of labor. Why should we not put a tariff on products from countries that have competitive advantages due to lack of these type of costly regs.
I agree with you, but I think you are a bit lost on why that is.
I agree with you, but I think you are a bit lost on why that is.
Free trade might have provided a means for our manufacturing companies to move overseas, but it wasn't the reason they left. That would be like saying a family in California would have never relocated to Arizona if U-Hauls and moving companies didn't exist.
Those extra tariffs would just be passed on to us, the consumer, through higher prices. Is that what you want?
Here's an Idea... Instead of socking it to companies that export their goods here, which ends up forcing consumers to pay more for those goods, why don't we become more competitive? Why don't we lower the minimum wage so companies can afford to either hire more people or lower their prices? Why don't we scale back on the amount of costly government regulations that make it so costly for American companies to do business in the US?
We all know how much cheaper it is to do business in many of the 3rd world countries, but did you know Europe is even kicking our butt? The average corporate tax rate in the EU is around 24%, while it averages 40% here. Combine that with the never ending list of costly government regulations and red tape, sky rocketing labor costs and lower production rates resulting from labor unions, and it's a wonder we have any manufacturing here at all.
I realize that what I just said might get an argument from some, that if we did away with unions and lowered the minimum wage, the average middle class paycheck in America might go down. But if we want the jobs to come back to America, along with our prosperity as a nation, what choice do we have? I don't know about you, but I'd rather see the average wage go down a little with full employment in America, than see a higher average wage with 10% of the people out of work and living off the government.
When you say Europe is kicking our butt, the place where manufacturing is growing is largely Eastern Europe due to low wage rates.
Getting away with the minimum wage will just move more people from the middle class to lower incomes. The question on the table was how to do the opposite.
You are correct that tariffs would mean higher prices. That is the tradeoff to having a stronger middle class. By allowing the jobs to move overseas, we turn our middle class into Wal Mart greeters at minimum wage. We also have huge trade deficits that is a constant wealth transfer as we pay the interest on the debt.
The rich should pay say amount of taxes as middle class (what is left of it) and the poor.
The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data
Average federal income tax rates as a percentage of AGI:
Top 1%: 22.45%
Top 1-5%: 20.53%
Top 6-10%: 12.66%
Top 11-25%: 9.43%
Top 26-50%: 7.01%
Bottom 50%: 2.99%
jacking up taxes on the rich don't give those who are not rich the tools to become more prosperous
That's why we need to be a more business friendly nation. It's the only chance we have of getting some of that manufacturing back, and not losing what we have left.
I was speaking of the average corporate tax rates for the European Union.
Personally, I don't think it can be done, but I will say this. The wages of the American worker will never go up, as long as the cost of doing business here remains as high as it is. I'm not saying that lowering that cost will increase wages for everyone, but some will definitely benefit. Employers are the ones who provide wages, so it stands to reason that decreasing their costs would increase the likelihood that workers would reap some financial benefits.
That's why we need to be a more business friendly nation. It's the only chance we have of getting some of that manufacturing back, and not losing what we have left.
That doesn't seem to be fundamentally true.
Take USC for instance. Back in the early 90s it was a joke school, where anyone could get in with half a brain and a heart beat. The school essentially reformed itself by charging rich students high rates while giving smart, motivated poor students free rides. By effectively "taxing" the rich it gave the poor the tools to become prosperous.
Are there cases where increased revenue from the rich doesn't help the poor? Absolutely. But that does not mean that this is a binary outcome. Your arguments are poor because you are always an absolutist with no capacity to see any shades of gray. Your arguments almost always binary. But reality is rarely so.
what would it mean if the rich were not getting richer?
if you have more money than you spend, you use that money to make money
jacking up taxes on the rich don't give those who are not rich the tools to become more prosperous
You're absolutely right. That really helps out the sweatshops in Mexico and Southeast Asia and Africa.
that is a rather stupid post from you. You normally make an effort to be responsive.
did it ever occur to you that a company is founded to make money for its investors, not to provide jobs for people who feel that they are entitled to jobs even if the cost of their labor is overpriced? I find this sort of argument by liberals funny since liberals tend to whine about AMerica having too high a standard of living while the third world is too poor. Having spend a fair amount of time in SOuth American and Kenya, I know that what US directed corporations pay people is better than what they are paid by local employers and that increases the standards of living in those countries. it also transfers some american wealth there
so why are you acting butt hurt about us raising the standards of living in places like China or bangladash (seems like half the baseball hats I own-including a couple US Shooting team caps are made there)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?