Warp schrieb:
>   On the other hand, how much does he contribute to the country's economy?
> Maybe he *spends* more, while paying less taxes, and thus keeps cash
> circulating and jobs running?
> 
>   If this *one* person would pay a very high percentage in taxes, exactly
> how many people would benefit from that? Would the benefit be large than
> him spending the same money?

Let's see where this leads us...

Assume for starters that we have a single filthy-rich guy owning a 
company and, presently, 100,000 quids, and 1,000 poor workers, who 
pesently hold 100 quids each.

We also have a government that wants to do things, but it needs money to 
do so. Let's say they want 50,000 quids, so they need to take it from 
someone.

Let's be a bit naive.

What would the /rich/ person do with 50,000 quids?

Well, maybe he'll buy a luxury yacht, which happens to costs a freakin' 
25,000 in workers' payment, as well as 25,000 in gain for companies 
involved in production. (Note that material costs are actually included 
in this, as you can't really turn modern money into gold, but instead 
ultimately pay people to get it out of the ground.) That makes an 
average 25 quids for each poor worker, and 25,000 quids for some other 
filthy-rich guy who happens to own all the companies involved in the 
production. Who in turn can buy some luxury goods as well, repeating the 
same thing - until all the 50,000 quids are in the workers' hands (50 
quids each), and the filthy-rich guys own more luxury goods. Fine: The 
poor can buy something to eat.

Or, he may hire an awful lot of people to groom his hair day and night. 
50,000 quids to the poor (50 quids each on average), and a happy 
well-groomed filthy-rich guy. Fine, too: Again, the poor can buy 
something to eat.

Or, he may decide to hire people to produce a new fancy product to make 
life easier; 50,000 in production costs going to the poor (50 quids each 
again), and a new product on the shelves. Fine: The poor can buy 
something to eat. Or that new product (prosperity!).

Seems like it's good to leave the 50,000 quids with the rich guy, right?


Now what would the /poor/ people do with 50,000 quids (that being 50 
quids each)?

A poor person might buy food. From some filthy-rich guy. Fine: The poor 
guy /has/ something to eat now, and the rich guy has 50,000 quids to 
re-invest.

Or a poor person might buy a fancy new good produce by the rich guy. 
Fine, too: The poor guy has some luxury stuff now too (prosperity! [*]), 
and the rich guy again has 50,000 quids to re-invest.

So, it's not bad to leave the 50 x 1,000 quids with the poor guys 
either, right?


Now what would the /government/ do with 50,000 quids?

They might for instance hire people to educate the children and young. 
Fine, too: 50,000 back to the poor people (50 quids each), to buy things 
from the filthy rich. /And/ well-educated young people able to develop 
more sophisticated goods (/more/ prosperity!!)

Or they might contract the filthy-rich guy's company to build roads. 
Fine, too: 50,000 to filthy-rich (who in turn hires the poor people to 
do the actual work). /And/ better roads to simplify producing goods 
(/more/ prosperity!!)

So, maybe it's /best/ to give the 50,000 quids to the government, after 
all - or am I missing something here?

The point here, so far, is that the government is /more/ interested in a 
general /increase/ of prosperity than the rich person is - or the poor 
one, for that matter. Both are only interested in buying a 
(comparatively) luxurious life for themselves.


So, why not give /all/ money to the government?

Erm... sorry, no: The government is /not/ that much interested in buying 
luxury goods for each individual as these individuals are; in other 
words, while the government is probably better at deciding what 
infrastructure to spend money on in order to increase the general 
/ability/ to prosper, the individual people (both poor and rich) are 
much better at using the money in a way that increases the individual's 
/will/ to prosper.


And from whom to take the money?

Say you take it all from the poor, leaving them with only 50 quids each. 
They need that much money, however, to eat and pay their rent, leaving 
them with /nothing/ to invest in luxury goods to reward themselves for 
improving prosperity... besides, what prosperity? They're stagnating.

Then again, say yo take it all from the rich, leaving him with only 
50,000 quids. Now, does /he/ need all this money to eat and pay his rent??


So, what's the morale here:

(1) No matter from whom you take the taxes, they do flow back. Even the 
rich guy (and his company, and his ability to create new jobs) benefits 
from the taxes taken from him, through government contracts.

(2) Taking taxes is important, because there /are/ things that 
capitalism, by itself, will /not/ automatically take care of.

(3) Taking /too/ much from the poor is fatal for an economy, as it kills 
  off the capitalist incentive. If the taxes don't suffice, and the poor 
are rather short on money already, I guess it's safer to put more taxes 
on the rich.

(4) I agree that there is probably a level at which the capitalist 
incentive is effectively killed off for the rich man, too; still, it 
appears to me that level will be much higher as with poor people - not 
only in absolute numbers, but in relative ones as well.


I am not an expert, and may be utterly mistaken for some reason, but 
these are the conclusions I come to when thinking it through.

Post a reply to this message