Will physicians be taxed out the a** if Bernie Sanders is president?

[el_duderino]

Imagine how much better off you would be if the bureaucracy weren't so convoluted and wasteful. The same services could be rendered at a much lighter tax burden for all. At some point in my life, I have been in every bracket up to and including the 28% and you will never find me advocating for tax hikes, even for those who earn >$1M. It will never be right in my eyes. That being said, I am all about reducing waste. It is almost impossible to be fired from government work, no matter how awful you are at your job. Reduce friction on the system and it will operate much more efficiently. Or just let us keep digging a hole and join Greece at the bottom.

Everyone is for reducing waste. It's almost meaningless to say so. Government bureaucracy is wasteful. It always has been and always will be. We need to try, hard, to reduce that waste and streamline things but you can't just say "reduce waste" like it's some solution to budgetary problems.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted480308]

Everyone is for reducing waste. It's almost meaningless to say so. Government bureaucracy is wasteful. It always has been and always will be. We need to try, hard, to reduce that waste and streamline things but you can't just say "reduce waste" like it's some solution to budgetary problems.

that's true.....flat out cancelling programs and depts is the way to go

 

[typoncho]

Everyone is for reducing waste. It's almost meaningless to say so. Government bureaucracy is wasteful. It always has been and always will be. We need to try, hard, to reduce that waste and streamline things but you can't just say "reduce waste" like it's some solution to budgetary problems.

Literally every post on this thread is "just saying something" rather than performing any real action. In one post you said that government will always be wasteful, while saying we should do something about it instead of talk about it.

 

[typoncho]

And not everyone is for reducing waste. As evidenced by the incredible growth of bureaucracy. Somebody is for it.

 

[PreciousHamburgers]

"Just cancel programs and departments to save money. And I know which ones those should be because I have it all figured out and know everything."

 

[PreciousHamburgers]

One person's waste is another's vital program.

 

[typoncho]

One person's waste is potentially another's vital program.

 

[PreciousHamburgers]

Catch 22: The VAST majority of tax dollars go towards military spending and healthcare, and as doctors, we wouldn't be making much money, if any, without those two programs (the value of the dollar is based on the power of the US government, plus the financial protections provided by government funded regulatory bodies). I'd say doctors get way more back in government spending than they pay in. I think most people do.

 

[el_duderino]

Literally every post on this thread is "just saying something" rather than performing any real action. In one post you said that government will always be wasteful, while saying we should do something about it instead of talk about it.

I think you misunderstood my post.

I wasn't drawing a comparison between "saying something" and "doing something"; I was drawing a comparison between proposing plans that may actually work and those that are basically nonsense.

 

[G.NA]

It was a joke about the king v burwell ruling...

Wrong..mandate vs. tax was NFIB v. Sebelius

 

[typoncho]

I think you misunderstood my post.

I wasn't drawing a comparison between "saying something" and "doing something"; I was drawing a comparison between proposing plans that may actually work and those that are basically nonsense.

I suppose I did misunderstand, then. I will agree that eliminating/lowering waste in government is incredibly difficult if not impossible. Growth is a property of government. It is still something that is worth some amount of energy in my eyes, but that's probably because I prefer shrinking government to raised taxes.

 

[deleted393595]

Considering how much billionaires made off of the last decade and a half of war, I do not feel bad asking them to pay for them. They'll still come out ahead.

So we should punish people for making more money? Why not tax them 90% or even 100% on their earnings?

 

[deleted393595]

*Ahem* Only Congress has the power to tax, not the President.

1) The power of the purse belongs to Congress, but the President/Executive Branch sets the policy agenda, and can get Congress to agree to higher taxes if the same party controls both branches. But this distinction is lost on most viewers of Fox/MSNBC/CNN, so they have go to with the tagline that "OBAMA GONNA TAKE YOUR MONIES AWAY". Although the end result is essentially the same though.

2) Fyi, Bernie's policy planks are the same as pre-crisis Greece. Just food for thought.

Everyone is for reducing waste. It's almost meaningless to say so. Government bureaucracy is wasteful. It always has been and always will be. We need to try, hard, to reduce that waste and streamline things but you can't just say "reduce waste" like it's some solution to budgetary problems.

I remember in Obama saying in the 2007 Presidential Debates that he would go through the budget with "a scalpel" to eliminate waste. And look how well that turned out

 

[Goro]

That's exactly what happened in the 1950s for the higher income brackets. Worked fine then.

So we should punish people for making more money? Why not tax them 90% or even 100% on their earnings?

 

[deleted393595]

That's exactly what happened in the 1950s for the higher income brackets. Worked fine then.

But the main objective test of a social proposal is not merely whether it emphasizes equality more than abundance, but whether it goes further and attempts to promote equality at the expense of abundance. Is the proposed measure intended primarily to help the poor, or to penalize the rich? And would it in fact punish the rich at the cost of also hurting everyone else?

This is the actual effect of steeply progressive income taxes and confiscatory inheritance taxes. These are not only counterproductive fiscally (bringing in less revenue from the higher brackets than lower rates would have brought), but they discourage or confiscate the capital accumulation and investment that would have increased national productivity and real wages. Most of the confiscated funds are then dissipated by the government in current consumption expenditures. The long-run effect of such tax rates, of course, is to leave the working poor worse off than they would otherwise have been.

 

[Lucca]

I suppose I did misunderstand, then. I will agree that eliminating/lowering waste in government is incredibly difficult if not impossible. Growth is a property of government. It is still something that is worth some amount of energy in my eyes, but that's probably because I prefer shrinking government to raised taxes.

It's a sound idea in principle (small government > tax and spend) but the problem is that we have a population and an economy that is incredibly imbalanced in terms of opportunity and stake. Small government works when you have a very strong natural revenue stream (natural resources have been this century's version of a very strong revenue stream, spices in the 13-17th centuries, etc). This is how oil-rich countries such as the UAE, Saudi Arabia, etc. can have social and economic growth while maintaining a smaller government and less public funding. The population of the U.S. is very large. It's not India or China but it is very large. Thanks to industrialism and capitalism and the twentieth century (all good things in my book, for the most part) we have a highly stratified society. Most of this society depends on public programs and funding for economic opportunity, safety, maintaining their living standards, education, healthcare etc. To shrink government, reduce spending and not somehow increase public funding (taxes) places a very serious portion of the population at risk.

I'm not arguing that there isn't waste in our government. Certainly there is. We spend more per student and per patient and produce worse outcomes in our education and healthcare systems respectively compared to similarly sized economies. Meanwhile corporate profits are at an all time high and the stock market (I.e the public and private stake in the economy that has less to do with opportunity than it does with capital ownership) has been sitting in the stratosphere. This should be a very simple indication that inequality will continue to increase disproportionately in this country under current policies which will make reducing the size and scope of government even more difficult in the future because even though the public stake in the economy is healthy public opportunity is suffering.

Imo, corporate taxes should be slashed for very small companies and increase commensurate with the companies size but still be small enough that companies do not have an incentive to shuffle money around overseas. As for public taxes, taxes on the rich (8 figure earners and up) should increase significantly alongside a steep increase in tax breaks available through philanthropy. I think giving the people who pay most of our taxes more control over the spending of those dollars is a good idea. For example, there could be a public fund for space exploration and research and another for computer labs in very poor schools. After having their income slashed by the income tax they could donate significant portions of their income to whichever fund they prefer and receive a gratuitous refund for their philanthropy. Effectively, it's just a way of bringing the public closer to the actual funding of public projects in order to assuage the bad taste of having your money stuffed into a government black box tax collecting machine.

On another note, Bernie Sanders may not have a very large chance of winning but he is currently making huge progress in the polls and is the only candidate taking steps forward currently rather than sitting on the defensive, Hillry included. Bernie's biggest weakness is that he isn't likely to win the support of "the Liberal elite" in the same way that Hillary can. Furthermore, as disillusioned as the Republican middle-ground voter base currently is I highly doubt they will willingly elect someone who is a self-described socialist. My worst fear is that Bernie's role in the debates will simply pull Hillary to the left and then she won't actually do anything when elected to office.

One thing is for sure: The possibility of a republican being the next president of the United States is vanishingly small and I say that sitting here in Texas. Candidate excitement here in Texas is about as lukewarm as it can be.

 

[deleted393595]

One thing is for sure: The possibility of a republican being the next president of the United States is vanishingly small and I say that sitting here in Texas. Candidate excitement here in Texas is about as lukewarm as it can be.

Reps have people who can win the election. Whether their party's base gives them a chance or not is a very good question.

 

[el_duderino]

So we should punish people for making more money? Why not tax them 90% or even 100% on their earnings?

Taxation is not punishment, and there's a vast gulf between 39.6% and 100%.

 

[Mad Jack]

Everyone is for reducing waste. It's almost meaningless to say so. Government bureaucracy is wasteful. It always has been and always will be. We need to try, hard, to reduce that waste and streamline things but you can't just say "reduce waste" like it's some solution to budgetary problems.

If we phased out SS and Medicare, we wouldn't have any budget problems.

 

[el_duderino]

If we phased out SS and Medicare, we wouldn't have any budget problems.

And what do you think we'd have instead?

 

[Lucca]

Reps have people who can win the election. Whether their party's base gives them a chance or not is a very good question.

Idk. It's not even about the candidates really (Trump is a laugh riot though). a lot would have to happen between now and 2016. Republicans just have a lot of work to do in terms of winning states over from last election while Democrats need to simply defend. The difference in electoral votes four years ago was enormous and not much has changed in these four years. If nothing else, this year alone has been the best of the past 8 in terms of political capital for the left regardless of how you feel about the president's role in all of it.

It'll probably be Jeb Bush v. Someone although I hope Marco Rubio beats out the Bush brother through some sort of Floridian Vudoo.

 

[deleted393595]

Taxation is not punishment, and there's a vast gulf between 39.6% and 100%.

So on principle, we should punish the rich more to pay for our own excesses?

Having lived in a country where this attitude is in effect, let me tell you where this road leads to: Your business will be stolen by government officials on the pretense of "not following a random and meaningless regulation". They then sell it to another well connected businessman, and pocket a hefty sum of cash. Good luck appealing to the courts because judges - if they aren't already colluding with the bureaucrats - want their palms to be greased very very well.

Sound too good to be true? This happened to my family. Americans have had it so good for so long that they don't understand where the road to socialism leads to. And I need to get off this thread because I have a ton of work to do.

 

[Dr. Retractor]

So on principle, we should punish the rich more to pay for our own excesses?

Having lived in a country where this attitude is in effect, let me tell you where this road leads to: Your business will be stolen by government officials on the pretense of "not following a random and meaningless regulation". They then sell it to another well connected businessman, and pocket a hefty sum of cash. Good luck appealing to the courts because judges - if they aren't already colluding with the bureaucrats - want their palms to be greased very very well.

Sound too good to be true? This happened to my family. Americans have had it so good for so long that they don't understand where the road to socialism leads to. And I need to get off this thread because I have a ton of work to do.

I think you may be talking about a certain South American country, and if so, there are some fundamental differences that would prevent something like that from happening here just as a result of increased taxation on the rich.

 

[Lucca]

I think you may be talking about a certain South American country, and if so, there are some fundamental differences that would prevent something like that from happening here just as a result of increased taxation on the rich.

I concur with this as I am also from and have lived in this certain South American country ....

 

[Lawpy]

Taxation is not punishment, and there's a vast gulf between 39.6% and 100%.

The good thing about tax increases is that the government cannot survive without rich people or wealthy corporations. Overtax them, and say goodbye to investment and the economy.

Sound too good to be true? This happened to my family. Americans have had it so good for so long that they don't understand where the road to socialism leads to. And I need to get off this thread because I have a ton of work to do.

You shouldn't waste your time arguing with defenders of socialism. Watching paint dry is more worthwhile at this point.

 

[el_duderino]

So on principle, we should punish the rich more to pay for our own excesses?

I'm not going to engage with someone who continually insists on referring to taxes as punishment.

 

[deleted393595]

I'm not going to engage with someone who continually insists on referring to taxes as punishment.

Samesies. I'm not going to argue with someone who doesn't comprehend basic economics.

 

[Dr. Retractor]

The good thing about tax increases is that the government cannot survive without rich people or wealthy corporations. Overtax them, and say goodbye to investment and the economy.

I'm (genuinely) curious as to why you think that would happen. It's obviously not smart to over-tax the rich, but taxing their incomes at a higher rate would not ruin capitalism and drive people away from wanting to get rich. If these tax dollars are used for social welfare programs, they would undoubtedly stimulate spending among the poor (which would help the economy and help those rich people get even richer). The view that socialism is bad because the rich are just giving handouts to the poor is limited because it ignores the actual, long-term effects.

 

[allantois]

There are effectively no rich in socialism: you would as a physician earn the same as the average person. So pay your damn taxes and be glad that for a totally arbitrary reason physicians happen to be among the top income earners in the US while at the same time not running the risk of getting mugged on the street as welfare programs keep unemployed from such desperate measures.

 

[Temerit]

stealing 90% out of one of my pockets isn't any more excusable because you steal less out of the other......that sort of income tax is deplorable

Why are you talking about 90% income tax? That hasn't existed for a half-a-century, no politician in the country is currently pushing for it's return, and it was always a marginal rate. You seem paranoid.

Your earlier statements seem to reveal that your worldview also completely ignores the multitude of ways you've benefited from tax dollars all your life.

So we should punish people for making more money? Why not tax them 90% or even 100% on their earnings?

Again, why are you bringing this up? Millionaires and billionaires currently pay lower overall tax rates than white collar workers like physicians. Small business owners can write off almost everything in their life tax-free and those who are rich or work in the financial sector make most of their money off of investments and pay only 15% on their capital gains.

I remember in Obama saying in the 2007 Presidential Debates that he would go through the budget with "a scalpel" to eliminate waste. And look how well that turned out

Government spending has grown under the last dozen presidents. Government spending has grown least under Obama -- and it's grown far less than under Reagan or Bush. Whatever you think of the ACA (I can imagine lol), it has started to bend the healthcare spending curve. Since two of the largest payers are public (medicare & medicaid) that inevitably means less government spending.

 

[Lawpy]

I'm (genuinely) curious as to why you think that would happen. It's obviously not smart to over-tax the rich, but taxing their incomes at a higher rate would not ruin capitalism and drive people away from wanting to get rich. If these tax dollars used for social welfare programs, they would undoubtedly stimulate spending among the poor (which would help the economy and help those rich people get even richer). The view that socialism is bad because the rich are just giving handouts to the poor is limited because it ignores the actual, long-term effects.

So few points.

1. Taxing the rich at a higher rate simply means the government is becoming increasingly dependent on rich people to get their jobs done. Higher tax rates discourage investment, which in turn discourages consumption and contracts the economy.

2. Socialism means government is the key to solving income inequality and promote overall welfare, a notion I reject. Private investment and charities are the way to help the poor, not government intervention, which only messes up the economy.

3. Socialist governments hardly have the Robin Hood mentality, but they sure love defaulting on debts.

4. Production fuels demand, not government intervention.

 

[DrShephardWannabe]

Ben Carson 2016.

 

[Dr. Retractor]

So few points.

1. Taxing the rich at a higher rate simply means the government is becoming increasingly dependent on rich people to get their jobs done. Higher tax rates discourage investment, which in turn discourages consumption and contracts the economy.

2. Socialism means government is the key to solving income inequality and promote overall welfare, a notion I reject. Private investment and charities are the way to help the poor, not government intervention, which only messes up the economy.

3. Socialist governments hardly have the Robin Hood mentality, but they sure love defaulting on debts.

4. Production fuels demand, not government intervention.

1. Unless you apply a general tax on capital gains, it would not discourage investment. Taxing capital gains above a high threshold at a high rate would ONLY affect the top 1% or so.

2. How does private investment help the poor? Aside from the well known philanthropy of Gates and Buffet and a few others, who on the Forbes' List donates to charities that actually work to help the poor?

3. Purely socialist governments? No doubt. Will the US ever have a purely socialist government? Hell no. Not to say that increased taxation is a guarantee that the money will be used intelligently, I just don't have enough knowledge about how the government works to think up a way around bureaucrats pocketing the extra tax money.

4. I think I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here. Wealth is what fuels demand. Producing more cars isn't going to make more people want to buy cars, having more people who can afford cars is going to make more people want to buy cars.

 

[nyxassassin]

As a lowly ms1 (in lab rotations mdphd) with little econ background here are my thoughts.

A lot of people dont seem to understand the point of taxes and seem really fixate on how they "earned" their salary. Also bernie sanders may call himself socialist but hes much closer to the scadinavian ideals of social democracy. We receive our grants, our training, our payment a lot from government. Government allows us to have nice cushy 6 figure jobs without people getting upset at it. I don't understand why so many premeds eat up the supply-side economics theories which really don't seem to work. Romney got taxed like 15% on his ridiculous income. Scandinavia is kicking our ass in most social measures and yet we still pay more for healthcare than them. Seems like a lot of people really just want that fat paycheck without thinking of how that wouldn't exist without government.

 

[el_duderino]

Seems like a lot of people really just want that fat paycheck without thinking of how that wouldn't exist without government.

People like to think they've earned their money all by themselves with little to no help from anyone else, and that they are simply more deserving of money.

 

[Lawpy]

1. Unless you apply a general tax on capital gains, it would not discourage investment. Taxing capital gains above a high threshold at a high rate would ONLY affect the top 1% or so.

2. How does private investment help the poor? Aside from the well known philanthropy of Gates and Buffet and a few others, who on the Forbes' List donates to charities that actually work to help the poor?

3. Purely socialist governments? No doubt. Will the US ever have a purely socialist government? Hell no. Not to say that increased taxation is a guarantee that the money will be used intelligently, I just don't have enough knowledge about how the government works to think up a way around bureaucrats pocketing the extra tax money.

4. I think I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here. Wealth is what fuels demand. Producing more cars isn't going to make more people want to buy cars, having more people who can afford cars is going to make more people want to buy cars.

1. Capital gains tax is the most common. But any tax increase on wealthy and on corporations creates an additional sunk cost. Simply put, more taxes mean more sunk costs, so firms are required to pursue cost-cutting measures since revenue may not be consistently high. This discourages investment (among many other things).

2. Through creating nonprofits (and creating NGOs in poor countries). And many wealthy people engage in charity work and altruism because it helps them look great to shareholders and consumers.

3. Taxation by itself helps. Taxing more does not (though it begs the question on what do we mean by "more", but i believe we can agree that tax rates > 50% is too high and discouraging). The US like anywhere else is a mixed economy, so socialism does play a role, but there are many instances when socialism is taking things too far.

4. The people who produce goods can use the money earned from consumers to buy other goods. This means the producers become consumers, and consumers earn money to buy from producing goods.

 

[Mad Jack]

And what do you think we'd have instead?

People actually saving that money and using it to fund their own health and retirement plans. I've done the math elsewhere on the forum- you win out over a lifetime if you invest SS and Medicare funds versus handing the money over to the government by a wide margin.

 

[Dr. Retractor]

1. Capital gains tax is the most common. But any tax increase on wealthy and on corporations creates an additional sunk cost. Simply put, more taxes mean more sunk costs, so firms are required to pursue cost-cutting measures since revenue may not be consistently high. This discourages investment (among many other things).

2. Through creating nonprofits (and creating NGOs in poor countries). And many wealthy people engage in charity work and altruism because it helps them look great to shareholders and consumers.

3. Taxation by itself helps. Taxing more does not (though it begs the question on what do we mean by "more", but i believe we can agree that tax rates > 50% is too high and discouraging). The US like anywhere else is a mixed economy, so socialism does play a role, but there are many instances when socialism is taking things too far.

4. The people who produce goods can use the money earned from consumers to buy other goods. This means the producers become consumers, and consumers earn money to buy from producing goods.

Okay, taxes = sunk cost, increase costs by x ==> goes to government, who distributes to people (socialism) ==> people buy stuff, give money to firm ==> revenues increase by y ==> sunk cost made up for and then some, as now people feel richer and pay more for stuff. So in other words, x<y and now the firm has a higher profit margin and room to invest more or line the pockets of its executives. (just to clarify though, I was previously talking about taxing individuals, but this is about corporate taxation).

Yeah creating NGOs in poor countries is great, but doesn't do jack squat for poor people here in the US (and I say this as someone with immigrant parents). You see how rich people set up charities and funds and donate to 'good causes'? See where those funds end up. These people are smart enough to show shareholders and consumers that they're all about benefiting the less fortunate while in reality benefiting themselves and/or those in their circle.

Wait, the people who produce the goods get the money from the consumers? *cough* Walmart *cough*, the people who benefit from the increased production of goods and higher demand are really only the people at the very top, not the people who need the money to buy stuff! You don't see the workers benefiting from investment in the company they work for, you could increase investment indefinitely before the execs stop pocketing the money and it "trickles down" to the workers.

 

[deleted393595]

Ben Carson 2016.

He's a political goofball with a medical degree, and an amalgam of the worst of Rick Santorum and Herman Cain.

 

[Lawpy]

Okay, taxes = sunk cost, increase costs by x ==> goes to government, who distributes to people (socialism) ==> people buy stuff, give money to firm ==> revenues increase by y ==> sunk cost made up for and then some, as now people feel richer and pay more for stuff. So in other words, x<y and now the firm has a higher profit margin and room to invest more or line the pockets of its executives. (just to clarify though, I was previously talking about taxing individuals, but this is about corporate taxation).

Yeah creating NGOs in poor countries is great, but doesn't do jack squat for poor people here in the US (and I say this as someone with immigrant parents). You see how rich people set up charities and funds and donate to 'good causes'? See where those funds end up. These people are smart enough to show shareholders and consumers that they're all about benefiting the less fortunate while in reality benefiting themselves and/or those in their circle.

Wait, the people who produce the goods get the money from the consumers? *cough* Walmart *cough*, the people who benefit from the increased production of goods and higher demand are really only the people at the very top, not the people who need the money to buy stuff! You don't see the workers benefiting from investment in the company they work for, you could increase investment indefinitely before the execs stop pocketing the money and it "trickles down" to the workers.

Except the limiting factor is government-driven redistribution of wealth, which is frankly ineffective, if not counterproductive. Most cases end up with consumers saving up the revenue (or even spending irrationally) and ends up in an x>y scenario.

I can't respond to your claim of rich people benefitting themselves in charities since you are attacking their character at that point.

Multistep transactions like Walmart and elsewhere still follow the principle that consumers are producers, and producers are consumers. Revenue/income allocation is determined entirely by skill, education and experience, so there really isn't any surprise why workers earn less than executives. Despite what critics say, there really isn't any "trickling down" that is happening.

 

[Dr. Retractor]

Except the limiting factor is government-driven redistribution of wealth, which is frankly ineffective, if not counterproductive. Most cases end up with consumers saving up the revenue (or even spending irrationally) and ends up in an x>y scenario.

I can't respond to your claim of rich people benefitting themselves in charities since you are attacking their character at that point.

Multistep transactions like Walmart and elsewhere still follow the principle that consumers are producers, and producers are consumers. Revenue/income allocation is determined entirely by skill, education and experience, so there really isn't any surprise why workers earn less than executives. Despite what critics say, there really isn't any "trickling down" that is happening.

Your first sentence is something I can't argue. But I don't think social welfare, in the long run, will cause people to continually save up. Spending, by human nature, may be irrational, but what matters is that they are spending. But look at what happens when people get their tax refunds, they go crazy with it even though it's still their own money from before. It's the notion of just being given money that would cause people to spend more.

Yes, it is reasonable for workers to earn less than executives. My point was that there is no benefit to the workers when the company they work for makes more money, whether it's increased revenue or from increased price of shares. So you can't stimulate workers to spend more just by increasing the amount of money the company makes, only by increasing the amount of money the workers make.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Politics and SDN are two things that should never be mixed.

But alas they are, hence the sociopolitical forums

Yet you seem to be pretty engaged in this discussion

 

[deleted393595]

Your first sentence is something I can't argue. But I don't think social welfare, in the long run, will cause people to continually save up. Spending, by human nature, may be irrational, but what matters is that they are spending. But look at what happens when people get their tax refunds, they go crazy with it even though it's still their own money from before. It's the notion of just being given money that would cause people to spend more.

Yes, it is reasonable for workers to earn less than executives. My point was that there is no benefit to the workers when the company they work for makes more money, whether it's increased revenue or from increased price of shares. So you can't stimulate workers to spend more just by increasing the amount of money the company makes, only by increasing the amount of money the workers make.

Broken windows fallacy.

 

[Lawpy]

Yet you seem to be pretty engaged in this discussion

The mods apparently decided to keep this thread here and not in the SP forums. I only posted to clarify some economic misconceptions, which soon became drawn out.

But hey, I managed to divert the attention away from politics and into economics, so that's a plus.

Your first sentence is something I can't argue. But I don't think social welfare, in the long run, will cause people to continually save up. Spending, by human nature, may be irrational, but what matters is that they are spending. But look at what happens when people get their tax refunds, they go crazy with it even though it's still their own money from before. It's the notion of just being given money that would cause people to spend more.

Yes, it is reasonable for workers to earn less than executives. My point was that there is no benefit to the workers when the company they work for makes more money, whether it's increased revenue or from increased price of shares. So you can't stimulate workers to spend more just by increasing the amount of money the company makes, only by increasing the amount of money the workers make.

But if spending requires sacrificing other things in the process, the net consumption becomes zero. And using social welfare as a measure for boosting consumption is a bad idea, since a culture of dependency results in the process (not to say, a weakening labor force).

Increasing wages for workers mean increasing costs for the company. Now depending on how it is done (by assessing worker quality and efficiency), the costs may be minimal. Loosely speaking, well-performing companies (receiving consistently high revenues) will mean higher wages for the workers, since the labor productivity will improve in the process.

 

[el_duderino]

People actually saving that money and using it to fund their own health and retirement plans.

You are the most optimistic person I've ever met if you think that most people would actually do that.

 

[DrShephardWannabe]

He's a political goofball with a medical degree,

To be fair, that's why I like him. Close family of mine is highly ranked in government and blatantly acknowledges 95% of the politicians are crooked.

 

[DokterMom]

So we should punish people for making more money? Why not tax them 90% or even 100% on their earnings?

It's not the earning that make folks rich -- It's the capital gains. In all the hubub about top tax rates on earned income, the .01% and .001%'ers are keeping awfully quiet so we won't touch their real income sources.

Start taxing THAT money more and you've got something.

 

[deleted393595]

It's not the earning that make folks rich -- It's the capital gains. In all the hubub about top tax rates on earned income, the .01% and .001%'ers are keeping awfully quiet so we won't touch their real income sources.

Start taxing THAT money more and you've got something.

Or we could take the tax rate that the 0.01% pay, and offer it to everyone - poor and rich - by cutting government spending.

 

[james11]

I don't think he's outlined any specific tax policy proposals yet anyway. Who knows, he could end up targeting his tax increases to income 400-500k+.

Well, plenty of private practice physicians clear half a mil in salary, although that'll change by the time we become partner-level attendings.

Considering how much billionaires made off of the last decade and a half of war, I do not feel bad asking them to pay for them. They'll still come out ahead.

That's fine but how is that relevant lol? doctors aren't billionaires

 

[mk04447]

Wait, the people who produce the goods get the money from the consumers? *cough* Walmart *cough*, the people who benefit from the increased production of goods and higher demand are really only the people at the very top, not the people who need the money to buy stuff!

Funny you should choose this example. Walmart recently reported >80% of their revenue comes from city, county, state, and federal welfare programs.