It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In our current "class war" climate, this argument has been repeated so often that it's now regarded as fact. And it is frequently and passionately invoked to defend the idea that we should make further tax cuts for rich people — so rich people can have an incentive to create more jobs...
Precisely. Why risk additional money (your own or bank) if the current revenues are down. At the same time, you should also ask 'WHY' is the revenue down? Bad Employees, Customer Service, Bad Food, Changing Times in eating habit? etc etc. After all they're in Business and not Charity work.
If I owned 20 McDonald's, and made over a million a year I could probably afford to build a new one and hire some people. However, if I find that overal revenue from my 20 McDonald's is down, what incentive to I have to build and expand?
Originally posted by beezzer
Why do people feel entitled to anything they didn't earn?
Many "wealthy" people started out working long hours with great risk to their financial security for years.
If the wealthy don't create jobs, I'm guessing that the answer would be government, yes?
If that's the case, then embrace big government. I, for one, will be working to make government accountable AND SMALLER.
Personal responsibility. Embrace it.
Originally posted by MystikMushroom
You bring up good points, however -- many companies that are very large and very wealthy were *not* created from scratch in this generation. Most of these large corporations are no longer owned by a single individual.
Ford, CocaCola and others are what I call "dynastic" companies. These companies account for the largest chunk of the GDP.
The government shouldn't directly create jobs. In other words, hiring more tax code people for the IRS. What they CAN do is pump more money into the middle/lower classes to enable those people to spend more money. This in turn would create greater revenues and encourage growth and job creation.
I don't think you fully gasp the concept here?
David Stockman, who was Ronald Reagan's budget director and economic guru, says Ryanomics is a "fairy tale." Stockman was one of the architects of "supply side" economics (aka trickle-down). Today he states unequivocally that trickle-down doesn't work.
Nope that is not what I am getting from the OP. He is saying that when people work all week and the pay packet they receive on a Friday runs out by Monday it is not good for the individual, their families or the country
So you want wealth redistribution. You want to punish success and reward people who have done nothing to earn it.
What I am getting from you is not that you disagree with the OP it is more like you are dismissing the points he makes which is quite different
I fully grasp your concept, sir. I just disagree with it.
Originally posted by MystikMushroom
reply to post by beezzer
Well, according to you we'd all pretty much live in mud huts while the rich (who pass on their wealth) sit atop the mountain in a castle, getting richer. We are all in this together, and the wealthy have been shifting the money from the middle/lower classes to the rich for years.
I suppose you'll claim "so what, it's their right".
This HURTS the rich in the end. If they horde their money, invest it overseas -- they destroy their consumer base.
Good luck working your way up from the bottom when you have nothing. Having two hands and a strong work ethic doesn't cut it anymore. An education helps, but when you can never pay off your student loan -- why bother?
It's a spiraling problem that is spinning faster and faster.
And yes, there is an element of class warfare here. Happy balances must be maintained for social and economic stability.
Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by beezzer
Nope that is not what I am getting from the OP. He is saying that when people work all week and the pay packet they receive on a Friday runs out by Monday it is not good for the individual, their families or the country
So you want wealth redistribution. You want to punish success and reward people who have done nothing to earn it.
What I am getting from you is not that you disagree with the OP it is more like you are dismissing the points he makes which is quite different
I fully grasp your concept, sir. I just disagree with it.