In article <4153822c$0$4032$61fed72c@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
blakwidoo@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> Just curious if anybody who is more economic savy then I am has comments
> about a passing theory I had the other day. I won't be insulted if you
say
> it's idiotic or whatever. I'm just curious what people have to say
about
> it, and in fact am very interested in what would make this theory a
failure:
>
> A capitalist society (one in which the government has almost no control
the
> market at all)...However there is a catch, this hypothetical society has
an
> astronomical tax ONLY on the wealthiest americans (one which still
allows
> them to stay very very very rich, but just takes a big chunk out of
thier
> earnings), and the money is reshuffled back into the pockets of all the
> other americans (like a check for $X.XX to everybody every month).
>
> I feel that this would actually boost the economy (since the least
wealthy
> are the highest spenders) and it would keep everything privatized, while
at
> the same time ensuring that societys wealth does not get too lopsided.
>
> When giving your response, please assume for arguements sake that there
are
> no swiss bank accounts or anything like that, and that this hypothetical
> society is a self-contained unit.
>
>
Not a bad question. Put this post into sci.econ, and you'll get a
more sensible answer than you will here. So far, you're only
getting replies from the usual newsgroop loons here. Also ask
lisa R or midtowng directly -- they actually know something
about Economics.
The term "Capitalism" refers to one of the four ways that old-
time Economist Thorsten Verblen theorized that wealth was created
in an Economy: Capital, Labor, Rents and Agriculture (I think).
Capitalism here doesn't necessarily refer to a so-called "free"
market; but simply emphasizes the tools used to create wealth in
an economy -- and the way those tools are purchased, owned, used
and financed. In fact, many "Socialist" societies are also
"Capitalist." Note that the definitions of economic terms like
"Capitalism" are NOT chiseled in stone.
Most Usenet posters don't understand the term "socialist,"
either, so you're going to get some really, really entertainingly
stupid replies from the Loons here.
***
Fact is; if you tax the rich and pass along money to the not-
rich; then you create a movement of money through an economy that
leaves everybody better off than if there were no taxes at
all. This is because the 'not-rich' would have more money to
spend, and they'd spend it with the 'rich' people who would
continue to make even more money than they paid in taxes -- but
this would only happen in a perfect world.
Out here in the real world, the 'rich' would escape some taxes,
the Government would absorb some noticable fraction of the money
they collect, and there would be some savings and investment as
well. All this gradual "loss" of money would actually slow down
money flow through the economy. Taxation by itself would not
therefore be inherently good or bad. The devil, here; would be
hiding in the details.
***
If you really, really REALLY cared about taxation, you'd set
your tax rate to be high enough to maximize the flow of money
through your economy, but low enough so that those transactions
would generate more money than you actually collected in taxes.
woof
|
