Kasz216 said:
HappySqurriel said:
Kasz216 said:
That's... pretty much just how it works everywhere though.
The rich get richer because... well the rich are the ones who tend to create the most money.
If we were in a system where there was a set 100,000 dollars... the rich getting richer would be more bothersome...
However in a system where value is created, how do you avoid the rich getting richer? Outside of economic collapse.
You basically... can't. That's why the Gini coefficient is on the rise in nearly all countries.
If we could find a way we'd be all for it, but the traditional methods like super high taxation on the rich are going to lead to nothing but lower wealth for all... but more equal.
I'd rather have 2 videogames a month, and a rich guy buying 2 houses a month, rather then have 1 videogame a month, and a rich guy buying 1 house a year.
|
While I agree with you in principle, the economy has been set up to reward the manipulation and rent-seeking behaviour of a handful of wealthy and well connected individuals and organizations. As an example of what I mean, consider cap-and-trade legislation ...
Cap and trade legislation is designed to necessarily increase the cost of energy to consumers without increasing the sale price to the producer; and this difference in cost to the consumer and sale price to the producer is the profit to a carbon trader, who causes significant economic harm, and the only reason they have access to this money is because of their economic power and political connections. Certainly, one could argue that an individual could also enter into the carbon trading market except that the invention of high-frequency trading gives large investors an extreme advantage.
Although cap-and-trade is the most obvious and easy to understand example of the economy being rigged to allow people with power to steal from those of us without power it is by no means the only one.
|
Oh yeah, we should definitly get rid a lot of the "useless" ways to increase wealth.
Though it won't stop the rich getting richer and getting a higher and higher percentage of money.
The only way to change that is DRASTIC action that will stall economic actions for a while.
The real problem I believe is that tax cuts are a one way, and only beneficial in the extreme short term action.
"Or as I would put it.... the only thing worse then implementing a tax cut, is raising taxes."
It's completely logical if you think about it. Tax raises stifle buisness. Of course they do, it's common sense. You raise taxes, and you lower the Rate of Return, which means that the Risk to Reward ratio for some people will be different and some won't invest. This really won't change until the "New class of investors" comes in.
While when you cut taxes... you get a small bump as people try and get in on this deal. Then the deal becomes normal, and your back at the rates of investment you had before.
The numbers seem to show fairly clearly it's the case.
Hence, if we're going to raise taxes... it should be one GIANT raise... all done at one time, when things are doing good.
|
As I said earlier, I don't believe taxes have anything to do with what I see as the problem ...
The problem isn't that some people are getting wealthier than others because I fully believe that as long as everyone's standard of living is increasing it doesn't matter if one group is seeing their standard of living increase at a more rapid rate. The problem is that the system has been 'rigged' to benefit thouse who have political or economic power at the expense of everyone else; and if things continue to degrade at the rate they have been, only these well connected and powerful few will benefit from the economy.
A large portion of the problem is that the government is collecting too much in taxes, and spending far too much, and this money is being transferred primarily to those with the best ability to "work the system". Years ago I was working for a very large corporation and after we had fully budgeted for the project we were working on (and it was going to be completed) the company heavily lobbied the government for financing; after receiving the financing, the company had saved so much money on the project that they beat their profit forecasts and the executives gave themselves massive bonuses. In other words, the net effect of the government investing in our "Green Energy" project was that executivies were able to give themselves millions of dollars in bonuses.
What is needed more than anything else is a massive reduction in the size of the government, and its involvement in the economy should only be as a referee. Everything it does beyond that is only going to be exploited to benefit those with political connections.
