Sure it's a pity some want to emulate gawd awful aspects of Europe (Socialism, National Health, castrated military) but never pick up on the good examples as you mention.

That is because they work.

It's easy.

If Obama can use other people's money to create jobs, he will be the saviour of the economy (despite the fact that those jobs and more would have been created by that money anyway).

And if Obama's tax policies cause unemployment, it will be the crisis caused by Bush and his Republican (actually Democratic) Congress that is to blame.

 

Does anyone believe that taxing the rich, while hurting the economy overall, preserves the middle class and promotes social mobility? To me, creating a more humane economy is a greater ideal than creating a perfectly efficient economy.

Let's be honest. Many of the super rich do not work as hard as many in the poorer classes. Redistributing wealth is not about taking from the people who worked hard. Many other factors besides work ethic go into determining income.* It is important to me that we preserve an economy that is not so top-heavy that the American people at large do not have limited opportunities.

*This is not to say that work ethic does not play a definate role.(http://www.scottcrumpler.com/documents/workethic.pdf  [Also, keep in mind that some people who do not make as much might think that hard work is not as important because they work or worked hard and they are still not succcessful. Again, not to totally discount these results.])

If you are talking physical labor?  That is almost a given.  The Maxim of "work smarter, not harder" still rules.  It is not how hard you work, but how much you produce with the work you do.

And how does owning a company that employs workers produce, exactly? A better argument is that you should be rewarded for the risk you take with your money when investing in said company. But, then, how did you get that money in the first place?

I don't see how. The middle class depends on the economy working (the rich do not, they can leave). And social mobility has been more prevalent in America than Europe, I think.

 

Define "more humane". I think that an economic system that encourages large segments of a population to sit at home is not humane.

 

Well, somebody is giving those people money. If it's not for their hard work, customers should give the money to somebody else, somebody who works harder.

 

Firstly, that is not a very patriotic opinion. But I will not press that issue right now except to point out that, while this may be true, people would really rather not hear it.

And to answer how, taxation removes money from the economy that could have been invested or could have been used to create supply and also demand (Say's law, or the converse proposed by Keynes). It lowers GDP. However, while targeting the rich in particular will probably reduce supply, or cut production, at the same time, the money taken from the economy can be used by the government to, say, improve school systems or to ensure medical care for our nation's less fortunate. And to top it off, the social ladder is shortened because the super rich are closer in income to the working class.  

But another key issue with McCain is that he wants to cut corporate taxes. The idea is that this allows corporations to generate profit more easily and thus produce more. More companies will come, more risky investments will be made, etc. Basically, there would be greater supply and thus greater demand. However, while there is greater supply, it can be argued that workers in these companies would not benefit as much. The CEO's would be making a lot more profit, but wages would be dictated by the amount workers are willing to work for. Unemployment might drop even, but ultimately, workers lose buying power compared to the rich (I am not entirely sure about this, but it is an argument that has been proposed to me.). Altough, an interesting idea is that their buying power might exceed what it would be if the economy were weaker. Who knows? It really boils down to people rather having a poorer country in which people are closer together economically over a country that is very rich but that exploits its workers.

[I really ran past my knowledge with this one. Feel free to prove deductively how something I said is wrong. I would be interested in seeing how.]

If the person (or persons) didn't own the company how would the employees have a job?  Someone has to be at the top overseeing the actions of the company.  They may not do any physical labor but that doesn't mean they aren't working.  The people at the top or responsible for how much the people they employ produce.

It is called brains.  The brains to have the idea, know how to implement and market it, and then to hire the right people to enact your plan.

And you cant invest in something that does not exist.  If no one has the ideas, then no one can invest in them.

El duderino-

This was disproven in Argentina several years ago.

You may remember there was quite a ruckus in the early part of this decade about how Argentina was broke and people were rioting in the streets (they had the temerity to get upset over the fact that they couldn't afford both food AND luxuries like running water and electricity for their families... what a bunch of whiners hey??)

So what hapenned? Well, many businesses went belly up. Many more businesses were bought out by big investment companies on the prowl for cheap deals, at which point they were ripped apart and sold off or pumped and dumped.

So, you had empty, rusting factories all over the place with unemployed folks staring at the empty factories. All of the "idea" men, the managers and executives and investment banker-providers-of-capital had got their pound of flesh and made off while many Argentinians were sitting there unemployed going "wtf?!?!"

The solution? The workers went back to work. They quite literally walked back into the factories and started producing again, with ZERO money in their pockets to start off with and all of the previous "idea men" managers nowhere to be found. Who'd imagine that workers could co-ordinate their actions without the blessing of a western-educated MBA??? No venture capital or investment or IMF loans at all. How they accomplished this is actually pretty easy to understand:

Factory worker calling natural resource producer on the phone:

"Hello, we've recently re-started production at factory XYZ because we were all unemployed and noticed this big factory just wasting away. We also realize that you guys, working in the (insert natural resource here- mining/lumber/farming) industry also are out of jobs because both of our glorious leaders took their capital and got out of dodge. So, if you can give us resources, we can build widgets which we can then sell, and give you your fair share of the money. This way we're happy because we're back at work, you're happy because you're back at work, and since we build an actual product that people will buy we're guaranteed some form of revenue. It may not be the kind of revenue that would please shareholders demanding a ridiculous year after-year exponential growth, but it should be enough to cover our costs, pay our people and  maybe have a little left over in the end. And heck, it sure beats sitting around watching the paint dry!!!"

Now, the above example worked out because this is all part of the real economy. A tangible good produced or service rendered.

As stevendedalus has correctly pointed out earlier on, much of the economy and perceived value out there has been decoupled from reality through derivatives, in the bigger scheme something called the FIRE economy. FIRE stands for finance, insurance, real estate, and contrary to ideology and dogma, the FIRE economy is always damaging to, or worst case scenario parasitic of the real economy which deals in goods produced or services rendered.

Cutting out all of the utterly obnoxious terminology behind Collateral-Default-Swaps, derivatives, debentures, structural-adjustment-financing, Master-Liquidity-Enhancement-Conduit and a thousand other terms invented purely to confuse and intimidate you, the world of finance today serves a purpose contrary to the real economy. That purpose is:

To Ignore Reality.

That's about as simple as it can get. Modern day finance is an attempt to ignore the reality of the situation on the ground, thereby allowing money to change hands and magically create more money, with NO actual good produced or service rendered in the real economy.

Now finance, at it's roots, was actually a support structure of the economy. Emphasis on the word SUPPORT. But, because we've so royally screwed the economy here in North America, we've had to obscure that with the financialization with everything.

Did you know that the last time the middle class made the most amount of money in north america was in the early 70's? Ever since then, adjusted for inflation average wages have fallen. We got rid of the factories and replaced them with shopping malls as the engine of the economy. Since consumer spending is now the lynchpin holding everything together, and wages have been falling for almost 40 years, how did we keep consumers shopping? 

Cue the financial behemoth!!!!

Cheap, unlimited credit for everyone!!

Sounds a little unsustainable to me.

In fact, it's starting to unravel right now.

This is the great innovation of the idea men, the movers and shakers to whom supposedly billion dollar bonuses must be paid to ensure they continue their services that no one else, supposedly, is capable of doing properly.

They've had their chance. What we see unfolding now, with the constant bailouts (over 4 trillion now and growing) is a feeble, pathetic attempt to continue ignoring reality and a stubborn denial of the reality that you cannot ignore the laws of physics. We've been artificially catapulting our economy and quality of life higher and higher, with nothing underpinning it to support that growth.  Enter the smartest guys in the room, men like Paulson who now will continue to pour public money into keeping private companies going just a little longer....

just....one...more...rally!!!!

Thing about most of american business owners is that they wear many hats.  They don't just sit in their comfy offices and tell the little ants what to do, they roll up their sleaves and do grunt work too. 

 

They haven't helped you much now have they?

They've been doing that anyway even with the Bush grant, but more so as investments, not businesses except multinational corporations.

 

Oh, he's violently against it!

Right, you fall right into the mindless trap of the Wall Street vigilantes who are totally against any tax. Since Carter, these thugs have bullied every president to lower taxes with their tricke down fairy tale.

If I'm a moron; you're an idiotic, trite sloganizer. Businesses are not the issue here. We're talking about income taxes--you sound like Joe the plumber--and any business that grows profit has the option to pour it back into the business and avoid the tax. rather than yield to the childish action of taking their marbles and leave. As for Ireland "slashing" taxes, it never had much of an economy to tax to begin with.