DigitalShadow Posted December 10, 2010 Report Share Posted December 10, 2010 While I am certainly no expert in economics and I will freely admit that I haven't even taken Economics 101, I do possess some critical thinking ability and would appreciate not being patronized. I am also not looking to prove anyone wrong or insult anyone's point of view, so I request this discussion to remain civil and not resort to political name calling on either side. With that said, I would have some questions to start off the discussion for anyone who would like to participate: 1. Assuming that there is a finite amount of money that the government needs to keep running and it has to be extracted from the public via taxes, in your opinion, what is the optimal distribution of this tax burden to help the economy? (I ask this without giving my opinion because I am honestly not sure) 2. I have heard it proposed that tax cuts on the wealthy would help the economy because the wealthy create jobs. In my limited economic understanding, I was under the impression that companies and corporations that create the vast majority of jobs, not wealthy individuals. Whether the CEO personally makes $40k or $40 million a year, he can still create jobs just as effectively. Similarly even if he had a 99% personal tax, it would not hurt his ability to create jobs in his company. You could claim that the wealthy CEO making $40 million will reinvest his money, thereby creating jobs, but non wealthy people do that every day by purchasing products and buying stock. What economic advantage is there for all that wealth to be held by one person? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.