Quote from TraderZones:
I wonder whether those who say "tax the rich" realize that the rich are the ones who generally create almost all the new jobs?
How often does an electrician's apprentice start a new software firm that employs 100 high paid professionals, greatly adding to the economy???
How many new jobs are added by:
nurses? 0 doctor? a few
janitors? 0 janitorial company owner? a few
teacher? 0 Sylvan Learning Center owner? a few
tech writer? 0 owner of recruiting company for tech writers? a few
restaurant manager? 0 restaurant owner? a few
etc. etc.
I will put it this way: There are those of us who believe that the greatest achivement of humanity is capitalism. Then there are others who think the greatest achievement of humanity is THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
The problem here is that the proponents of the first belief have control of dissemination of information and use it to indoctrinate people.
It is a rather crude and primitive way to summarize progress of human history through triumph of capitalism while ignoring the contributions made to dignified living standards by scientists, engineers, philosophers and others.
All the low taxes in the world would not end slavery without the possibility for mechanized and efficient labor. Furthermore, as I pointed out a few threads ago, without the invention of transistor the modern economy would not be possible.
I often hear the expression "the rich create jobs". The rich don't create jobs out of the goodness of their heart, this is not charity. The rich create jobs so that they can profit through economic transactions.
For example, when Delta airlines hires a pilot it is not doing that pilot a favor it is entering into a trade - expertise for money. If I go to H.R. Block to do my taxes I am not doing them a favor they are not doing me a favor. Trade is about mutually beneficial transactions and not charity. Now guys from Wall Street Journal and the like would have you believe that we should feel grateful to the rich for "taking care of us and giving us jobs" which distorts reality.
Cutting taxes for the rich does not work for several reasons. There is a reason there are no patek philippe dealerships in the state of wyoming. On the demand side it does not matter whether you cut Bill Gates's taxes to zero if you there is no increase in purchasing power of others no more microsoft products will be bought. On the supply side, if you cut taxes the CONSUMPTION of the rich will not increase decisively or at all. All the investment argument is a load of crap. To make investments work you need others to have purchasing power... Same goes for loaning money out.
It is important to differentiate between earned wealth and inherited wealth. Throughout all this screaming about depriving americans of the opportunity to succeed republicans actively promote the idea of eliminating the inheritance tax (which they cutely name the death tax) which serves no purpose other than promote generational wealth. If you follow Wall Street Journal line of thinking Paris Hilton is way more important to society than some graduate engineering student at MIT. But clearly, that kind of thinking will not take a country too far.
The simple reality here is that for a country as a whole to be truly prosperous (as opposed to a tiny slice of people) the middle class has to be large and stable. If cutting taxes for the rich made some for some kind of Utopian existence France of Louis XVI would have been paradise, but it clearly was not. History is full of examples where nobility, aristocracy and simply "the rich" had all kinds of priviliges (political and economic) and it did NOTHING for the living standards of the average citizen.
In this country(USA) there was an absolute belief in the private enterprise and laissez-faire in the years leading up to the great depression. After the total collapse of the invisible hand kind of thinking the economy become a bit more regulated and for the better. Look at how efficiently Dick Fuld managed Lehman no government bureaucrat could ever measure up!
In present day, there is a concerted efforr to rewrite history and to proclaim that instead of the real cause of the depression (massive speculation/credit implosion) it was that countries started to impose tariffs instead of engaging free trade. That is all fine and dandy but even this spin version essentially means that the blind faith in the business community in 1920s was misplaced. Business community and the Republican party used to favor protective tariffs. Hell, for a good chunk of US history, tariffs were a major source of income. After the possibilities of globalization and exploiting people who live a foot in mouth existence became possible, the business community is all for free trade.
In Summary:
1. Human existence improved more from the efforts of scientists and engineers and others than from consumption of the "rich"
2. The rich don't do anyone any favors by creating jobs. They enter into mutually beneficial expertise for money relationships for their long term benefit.
3. The rich benefit greatly from the purchasing power of the middle and lower classes (Wal-Mart makes most if not all of its money from the middle/lower classes)
4. Society is intervined, classes need each other.