Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Timst]

That's supposing that :

- Every person that earn welfare fund is a lazy parasite that abuse the system (while it may be true in some case, it's not in most).
- Every "rich people" is willing to invest his money, and more precisely, is willing to invest his money IN YOUR COUNTRY.

On the "encourage large families", that'll also means more food and miscellaneous cost for the family, and even more job to provide.

Also, I never said that communism was efficient : I simply said soviet russia struggled to give everyone a job, because that's how an economy works. You can't give a job to everyone AND expect companies to make profit on top of that... there's simply not enough work to do. Hence the "Megaproject policies" for instance, that aim to provide job by creating huge, state-funded projects that cost billions and take years to achieve.

[chaoticag]

I'd like to point out that the rich cannot make money unless the poor have money to spend. Giving money to the poor ought to work better, in my opinion, than letting the rich do what they want with their money.

The corner stone of economics is the consumer, and if the consumer cannot consume, then the producer cannot produce regardles of how much money they have, and if they do not produce, I doubt they will feel charitable enough to give to the poor.

The idea you seem to have on taxes strikes me as similar to the pre-Depression Era, where there was not that much tax on anyone, and once it all went down South, nothing improved untill welfare as we know it was put in place, where things started to recover. (Though they didn't fully recover untill the Second World War, where everyone stopped being lazy for some reason).

People that don't have jobs can't get jobs, plain and simple. They aren't lazy, and the best results of getting the homeless back on their feet was throwing money at them, and not stopping them from drinking.

(Source? Here you go. 3rd Paragraph here from a guy with a Ph.D. Quoting the American Journal of Medicine
http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/umm-warning-research-may-challenge-your-assumptions/)

[Earthquake Damage]

On top of that, you get a society which encourages starting large families, and having family life, not because the government is spending millions on promoing such a lifestyle, but because people want to have somebody to turn to, should they get unlucky at some point in their lives. This creates more taxpayers and saves on another wasteful governmental spending.

As the population grows, you do indeed have more taxpayers.  However, infrastructure and government must grow to accommodate them.  Even if you can cover the cost of the growth and maintenance of said infrastructure in addition to the additional government employees and so forth, government efficiency plummets as size increases.  So government waste will increase without deliberately increasing spending.

[Blacken]

I'm curious if you've ever taken a macroeconomics class. I don't mean that as an insult, it's just that nothing you're saying makes sense according to any generally accepted theory*. Even hardcore free marketeers like Friedman understood and agreed that you have to tax people who have money and the poor aren't people who have money. The only real argument is how much you can tax before you start significantly impacting the economy.

You are laboring under the assumption that there are simple answers to any nontrivial problem in economics. This is not in any way, shape, or form the case. Simple answers worked--they did not work well, but they worked--when the economic "world" was a city or at most a small country. This is 2009. This is a global economy. Feudalism, where the serfs toil to meet your silly arbitrary "pay us this much to exist" goal, doesn't work. At the end of the day, the peasants always rise up and kill you. (Hi, France!)



* - This excepts the Flat Tax people, because they are, to be blunt, incredibly dishonest and unable to verify their own mathematics. They are selling beachfront property in Kansas.

[Il Palazzo]

Nah, all I know about modern economy is that Milton doesn't agree with Friedman and vice versa.
That said, try and not use this to rebuke all my musings simply with "you don't know no shit about economy".

[Blacken]

...

Milton Friedman is one person.

And, yes, I will use it to discount what you say, because you are essentially saying "I have no real knowledge of the topic, but by God I will have an opinion!". If you don't value your opinion enough to have an informed one, why should I value yours enough to take it seriously?

[Il Palazzo]

Good point, I guess.

[Nilocy]

Theres been some serious backlash to this PBR in the UK. A lot of people are seriously pissed off. Mainly working class Britain is having a total raeg at the government atm. Oh well, more screwed we are. This has probably sealed the Conservatives winning the next election.

[Leafsnail]

Theres been some serious backlash to this PBR in the UK. A lot of people are seriously pissed off. Mainly working class Britain is having a total raeg at the government atm. Oh well, more screwed we are. This has probably sealed the Conservatives winning the next election.

The same conservatives who've dropped 3 points in opinion polls over the last month ?

Pfft... we're probably heading for a hung parliament.  Noone really likes either party.

[Nilocy]

Lib dems were all like "We're cowards and we'll support NO ONE."

[Leafsnail]

Lib dems were all like "We're cowards and we'll support NO ONE."

They're trying to dress it up as bravery and not going with the pack... I call it idiocy myself.

It doesn't really matter all that much who wins - either government is gonna have a firesale of public assets at the usual terrible prices.