Can We Just Get The Revolution Started Already?

[onedreamer]

Linky, Link



So let me get this straight: The logic here is that poor people need to be taxed more to balance the budget, but businesses need to be taxed less so they can create jobs? Sounds good, except for one little problem: Since the poor now have a heavier tax burden, they will now have even less discretionary income to spend at these businesses. This means less revenue, which means those hypothetical new jobs still won't be created and the business owners will get to pocket more of their money while the average worker haas to fork over even more of their income to a corrupt inefficient sack-of-dung government.

This reeks of corruption and it needs to be squashed before it catches on in more states.

I agree that it sounds crazy, but maybe you don't know that this is exactly what Tatcher did in UK some two decades and more ago, and it worked.
The only problem is that socio-economical conditions are different now. In my opinion the total failure we are witnessing is due only to globalization. Globalization allows the redistribution of wealth not inside a country, but around the world. So while Tatcher could be successful with this seemingly crazy plan, I doubt it would work today because investors would put their money abroad, where's it cheap, and not in the developed countries.

 

[Traitorfish]

I get what you are saying about their net tax being zero... but they don't, often times. They will still think they own a stake if they see money coming out of their paychecks.

"Own a stake"? Since when was the United States a 14th century merchant republic?

I agree that it sounds crazy, but maybe you don't know that this is exactly what Tatcher did in UK some two decades and more ago, and it worked.

"Worked", eh?

(Edit: Population growth over the same period.)

 

[onedreamer]

Traitorfish, before Tatcher UK's economy was at stall and it restarted with her. The data you posted is about another story. You're welcome to discuss it... but not quoting something different, thank you.

 

[Traitorfish]

My intent was not question Thatcher's success in improving the UK's economic dynamism, but to question the assumption that this can be considered a successful government policy without reference to its broader socioeconomic impact.

 

[onedreamer]

I made broader socioeconomical considerations that would, all IMO ofc, explain how it would not work today, but you managed to cut them out with a despicable and unmentioned snip, only to claim in your defense that I didn't do it and that I assumed something when I assumed the contrary.
What can I say... congratulations?

 

[Leonel]

OR

Improve productivity.

Reduce dividends.

Stop bloating chief executive renumeration.

Precisely. If we were to use the maxim that people on welfare are lazy and that corporations are people, therefore a company who has generous tax breaks will be less inclined to be as productive as a company who is forced to increase productivity to overcome the taxes. What incentive does a company have to hire more people when it's tax rates are low enough that they can profit on the fewer people they do employ?

 

[Traitorfish]

I made broader socioeconomical considerations that would, all IMO ofc, explain how it would not work today, but you managed to cut them out with a despicable and unmentioned snip, only to claim in your defense that I didn't do it and that I assumed something when I assumed the contrary.
What can I say... congratulations?

You described Thatcher's policies as a "success", and I raised the question of whether the widespread immiseration associated with those policies allow that label. That you acknowledge the potential for a similar pattern of immiseration if these policies were implemented today doesn't resolve that contention. I do not see why this is "despicable" or deserving of snide dismissals.

 

[onedreamer]

You described Thatcher's policies as a "success", and I raised the question of whether the widespread immiseration associated with those policies allow that label.

It was a success in its aim to restart the economy. Tatcher's aim was not the welfare of poor and middle strata. In fact, to disprove what is pretty much common knowledge, you posted completely irrilevant data.

That you acknowledge the potential for a similar pattern of immiseration if these policies were implemented today doesn't resolve that contention. I do not see why this is "despicable" or deserving of snide dismissals.

Nope, I don't acknowledge that at all because I never denied the immiseration of poor and middle strata in the first place. I wrote that today even the restarting of economy with Tatcher's implementation would most probably not work. I am not speaking of the immiseration of the population because it is not the topic of the thread, which is about the State of Michigan and its struggle to restart its economy. You are talking of something else and accuse me to not take it into consideration. Funny.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, evidently we're using very different definitions of "success"; I had assumed a broad sense, in which "success" is conceived of in relation to a government's broader socio-economic responsibilities, while you were using it in a narrow sense, to refer specifically to the immediate goals of a single set of policies. Frankly, that seems to me a definition of success so isolated from context as to be practically meaningless, but I will none the less accept that the misunderstanding was on my part. My apologies.

 

[Defiant47]

It was a success in its aim to restart the economy. Tatcher's aim was not the welfare of poor and middle strata. In fact, to disprove what is pretty much common knowledge, you posted completely irrilevant data.

What's the point of "restarting the economy" if the poor and middle strata are still in dire straits??

The only reason a recessionary economy is a bad thing is because it affects people in a very negative manner, specifically the poor and middle class. If a measure is made to restore the economy, it should only be for the purposes of removing those disadvantages and relieving the burdens placed on those in trouble.

Otherwise, you're just going to help people who don't need it, and be ignoring the ones who need it the most.

 

[kochman]

What's the point of "restarting the economy" if the poor and middle strata are still in dire straits??

Well, fixing 1 out of 3 problems is better than fixing 0 out of 3 problems... so long as fixing that 1 of 3 doesn't rule out solving the other 2 in the future, which in this case, it certainly did not.

 

[GoodGame]

You're not allowed a Great Revolution until the head of state marries an interfering German. Law of History.

The French revolution sounds more like the OP situation (regressive taxation), as I fail to see any interfering Germans.

 

[Traitorfish]

The French revolution sounds more like the OP situation (regressive taxation), as I fail to see any interfering Germans.

Austrians are German, and in those days they still had the good manners to admit it.

 

[Leoreth]

Wait, so all we'd have to do to abolish this neoliberal crap across the pond is to provide you some girls? You could've said that earlier.

 

[Defiant47]

Well, fixing 1 out of 3 problems is better than fixing 0 out of 3 problems... so long as fixing that 1 of 3 doesn't rule out solving the other 2 in the future, which in this case, it certainly did not.

Except the other 2 weren't solved, seeing as social welfare programs were not bolstered. So your qualification is inapplicable.

 

[kochman]

Except the other 2 weren't solved, seeing as social welfare programs were not bolstered. So your qualification is inapplicable.

I think you might need to re-read what I wrote.