because in your world, your waiter wants to be the recipient / beneficiary of others people money, not the provider for programs he may espouse. Or shall I say, what you may espouse to for his benefit.
Don't you even know what you're suggesting? Do I have to explain your desires to you now?
Willie, you don't even know what my opinions about economy and taxes are, and I'm not suggesting anything.
All I am doing in this thread is showing that even assuming Obama's tax plans are bad for the country, the OP and the right-wing comments about it are definitely no proof for that. Hell, even I could find better substantial arguments and examples against Obama's tax plan than you right-wingers come up with.
hno:its a perfect analogy
he took the money from someone who had earned it and gave it to somebody else who could use it more
its EXACTLY what obama wants to do
now your just arbitrarily deciding at what point this is ok
maybe the guy making 250k is supporting his sick mother and spends 200k a year on her housing and medicine
maybe the waiter making a lot less has rich parents that support him
this just shows how idiotic obamas ideas are
No...you can't just assume extra business will lead to extra profit.
It really depends on the costs. Higher taxes increase the cost.
Higher cost is never a good thing. Less economic activity will always be the result.
Thats also why higher taxes lead to less revenues take in...not more.
Libs can't get their head around that either.
You have 10 waitresses that ultimately give you $300,000 after tax income.
Now with Obama...they only give you $270,000 in after tax income.
How is that better? :think2:
The business owner ultimately decides he would be better off cutting back to 6 waitresses and only make 249,000 per year.
The extra work and extra hours to gain the extra $50,000 is no longer worth it to him.
For an extra $50,000 it was a new truck every year...now he doesn't buy that either.
So the guy at the auto dealer sellling trucks takes a hit as well.
And on and on it goes.
Then can you please explain to me how having the restaurant owner paying higher income tax increases his costs? Please try thinking before generalising.
I guess an argument could be made that with an increased income tax the restaurant owners' expenses for the materials he has to buy are likely to rise. However, this will affect his whole business, meaning as long as his restaurant is profitable keeping the waiter in question here in order to serve additional business will without a doubt yield extra profit (assuming this waiter earns the same as the other waiters).
People, PLEASE stop just repeating what you are told, at least find examples that actually supporting your opinions.
It is not. When have I said otherwise?
So the owner makes 249,000 with six waitresses but only 51,000 more with ten? Not very realistic, is it? By making up unrealistic scenarios one can prove everything, of course.
Also, even in your example I doubt that having four additional waitresses would lead to so much more work and longer hours (where would that come from?) for the owner that he rather foregos the opportunity to make an extra 21,000.
Now here it gets a little more interesting. Again, your example is a little unfortunate as it is likely that the people who are not served at this restaurant because of the downsizing simply go to another restaurant, making that owner more money he can spend on trucks.
But I can and will not deny that increased income taxes decrease the amount of money people have to make purchases, thus decreasing the demand for goods, which of course is not good for the economy. However, even this need not really be a problem, because the money paid as taxes has not vaporised, obviously, but will get used by the government. If they use it wisely they can replace the diminished private demand with it while even steering the economy into the preferred direction. But I'm the first to agree that, unfortunately, government is very unlikely to use the money wisely. This is probably the main problem.
If you don't understand the economic fact of diminishing returns...then you do not understand the basics.
Libs always think this way.
Gains in productivity are not geometric...geesh.
Seriously...this is really basic stuff.
There is always a sweet spot...higher taxes shrink it.
As usual, you only provide general assertions without getting specific. and as usual, you are wrong, at least regarding our example.
If there is additional business to be served (which our example clearly assumes) then why should there be diminished returns? It can be assumed that the additional waiters each serve the same amount of customers as the first six. Even if the owner works himself as waiter, this means we could expect a turnover growth of 4/7 = 57%. As it can be further assumed that the cost for serving additional business is, on average, not higher than the cost for the original business, but that there are fixed costs which will not change regardless whether 6 or 10 waiters work for the owner, it is to be expected that the profit (before taxes) increases even more than those 57%.
Of course, if we deviate from the example and assume that the owner has to invest in order to employ four additional waiters, for example by increasing the restaurant space, running additional ads and such, then things might differ. I never said it is certain that Obama's tax increase will not have negative consequences, all I'm doing is to show that the examples you Republicans bring don't prove anything.
Like politics, economic decisions are not black and white. There is a huge number of interactions for everything you do. I don't claim to understand it all, and I'm quite certain that most of the posters here, not least those who criticise Obama's plan, don't understand anything. But it's so easy to just repeat the talking points you hear, isn't it?
I wholeheartedly agree that "spreading the wealth" must not include raising welfare payments for people able to work, instead government should strife to as much as possible to widen the gap between those on welfare and those who work full-time (even in 'shitty' jobs), in order to create true incentives for the unemployed to look for a job.
I don't know the exact situation in the U.S. but this is a huge problem in Germany, especially in the poorer parts of the country like rural eastern Germany, where I live. Here, there are lots of low-wage jobs that pay little more than the welfare rates. As welfare increases significantly if you have children while the wages are, of course, not influenced by this, it is nor unusual for a famliy of four or more to get more money on welfare than they would make if both parents had full-time, low-wage jobs. This is obviously a terrible, counterproductive situation. I do believe a public welfare system is necessary, private charity alone won't be enough to prevent true poverty, but welfare must always be a last safety net and not a means to live comfortably while being lazy.
Sums it up well - im not saying every person on welfare is milking the system- some really do need temporary help
but it creates a system where nobody has motivation to better themselves (why work when you can get more from the govt for not working?)
Tons of people have kids,knowing that they cant afford them but that the taxpayers have to pay for them
As for charities- ill take a charity with half the money a govt spends trying to be charitable any day of the week
