Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Its been argued in other threads that we should not tax the wealthy too much because they are the ones creating jobs and they are needed for the health of the economy.

    Over the last 11 years, the wealthiest have had their income increasing more than any other group and 40% of the total increase in income have gone to the top 10%. http://www.poverty.org.uk/09/index.shtml

    If the people who argue that the wealthy did create new jobs, then there should be an increase in jobs over the last 11 years and we should have far more jobs than we did a decade ago and we should not have more than 2.5 million people unemployed.

    Can those who argue that the wealthy create jobs explain why we have fewer jobs now despite the wealthiest people getting more wealthy at a faster rate than everyone else but we still have high unemployment?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Your forgetting technological progress also causes many people to lsoe their jobs to. Also we have just come out of a massive economic crisis
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    "then there should be an increase in jobs over the last 11 years and we should have far more jobs than we did a decade ago and we should not have more than 2.5 million people unemployed."

    thats your error, economies are slightly more complicated than appears to be assumed and the range of third factors are infinite. unemployment is caused by a wide variety of factors and as mentioned above there has been a monumental misallocation of resources in the UK. as a more general point, taxes have to be low to encourage investment (and to a lesser extent, consumption) and those who invest most are the wealthy/companies. there are obviously many other factors but the main point is that governments are far better at wasting money...their investments are often relatively poor and they are overly generous with pay particularly pensions and the like hence the massive misallocation of resources.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    Its been argued in other threads that we should not tax the wealthy too much because they are the ones creating jobs and they are needed for the health of the economy.

    Over the last 11 years, the wealthiest have had their income increasing more than any other group and 40% of the total increase in income have gone to the top 10%. http://www.poverty.org.uk/09/index.shtml

    If the people who argue that the wealthy did create new jobs, then there should be an increase in jobs over the last 11 years and we should have far more jobs than we did a decade ago and we should not have more than 2.5 million people unemployed.

    Can those who argue that the wealthy create jobs explain why we have fewer jobs now despite the wealthiest people getting more wealthy at a faster rate than everyone else but we still have high unemployment?
    Are you suggesting the UK population hasn't increased in the last 10 years?

    You can't say because the absolute unemployment rate hasn't increased that neither has the absolute employment rate.There are more jobs in the economy today than there were in 1999.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Your forgetting technological progress also causes many people to lsoe their jobs to. Also we have just come out of a massive economic crisis
    And technology can create new jobs like in computing and telecomms.

    The massive economic crisis was caused by the very wealthy.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crcr)
    "then there should be an increase in jobs over the last 11 years and we should have far more jobs than we did a decade ago and we should not have more than 2.5 million people unemployed."

    thats your error, economies are slightly more complicated than appears to be assumed and the range of third factors are infinite. unemployment is caused by a wide variety of factors and as mentioned above there has been a monumental misallocation of resources in the UK. as a more general point, taxes have to be low to encourage investment (and to a lesser extent, consumption) and those who invest most are the wealthy/companies. there are obviously many other factors but the main point is that governments are far better at wasting money...their investments are often relatively poor and they are overly generous with pay particularly pensions and the like hence the massive misallocation of resources.
    If unemployment has so many causes, how do we know rich people can provide new jobs?
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Are you suggesting the UK population hasn't increased in the last 10 years?

    You can't say because the absolute unemployment rate hasn't increased that neither has the absolute employment rate.There are more jobs in the economy today than there were in 1999.
    How many new jobs?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The rich, who give people jobs, got a whole lot poorer in the recession. Some got billions poorer - hence the drop in employment. GDP per head roughly corresponds to quality of life... Switzerland has one of the highest GDPs per head and their citizens have the quality of life and high flying jobs to show for it.

    It costs every citizen in the country 50p or so to create a millionaire. And when the poor get an increase in wealth they spend it, which makes the rich richer and also creates new millionaires. No ones capital sits still, even when it's in the bank it is employing people in various ways.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    How many new jobs?
    Sept '99 - 27,897,000 jobs http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/lmsuk0600.pdf
    Sept '10 - 29,158,000 jobs http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/lmsuk0910.pdf

    So something like 1.25 million more jobs.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    the "massive economic crisis" wasn't caused by the very wealthy, i'd love to hear that view?...technology can create new jobs but not with a large degree of government intervention stifling investment and occupational mobility.

    right to summarize, you appear to be saying that recent history disproves the theory that a rising income for the wealthiest leads to lower unemployment. this is a straw-man argument, no1 believes that it is (specfically) income inequality that leads to lower unemployment. what they do believe is that the rich shouldn't be taxed to an excessive degree, whatever that means, as this discourages investment and saving. this isn't really a contraversial view and while the theory has been favoured by conservatives like Reagan, its also been as popular with liberals like JFK. personally, i would say taxing someone at a marginal rate of over 75% which is somewhat frequent isn't reli helpful to anyone. these are two very different points, one makes sense, the other is just confusing.

    i don't really get the importance of "rich" people either...money comes from someone, the great government in the sky gets it from someone, it isn't free money raining down from heaven. businesses provide jobs and to start a business to employ people you need money which either comes from a bank or your pocket. so jobs come from that money..."rich" people aren't really important, "rich" people nowadays "work" for their money far more than in the past but still i don't understand how they can be identified as a relevant group within this question. but also logic dictates that if you are receiving money from someone in exchange for labour (if they aren't counterfeiting) they are getting it from someone else and if you have enough to pay someone else you are probablly rich...so by logic if you are defining a job as paid labour how could it come from anywhere else?...its not even reli a question, it just common sense...

    so talking about actual economic units like businesses or something is far more valuable wheras rich people doesn't make sense...i mean is your point that the rich hoard money or something?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    End of the day even if they arent creating many jobs they have earned that money, less tax and they will be more incouraged to reinvest. Current way it stands if your already wealthy what is the motivation to go out and expand your buisness when you know you are going to lose huge proportions of any wealth you generate to tax
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Sept '99 - 27,897,000 jobs http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/lmsuk0600.pdf
    Sept '10 - 29,158,000 jobs http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/lmsuk0910.pdf

    So something like 1.25 million more jobs.
    What proportion of these were created by wealthy people?
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crcr)
    the "massive economic crisis" wasn't caused by the very wealthy, i'd love to hear that view?...technology can create new jobs but not with a large degree of government intervention stifling investment and occupational mobility.

    right to summarize, you appear to be saying that recent history disproves the theory that a rising income for the wealthiest leads to lower unemployment. this is a straw-man argument, no1 believes that it is (specfically) income inequality that leads to lower unemployment. what they do believe is that the rich shouldn't be taxed to an excessive degree, whatever that means, as this discourages investment and saving. this isn't really a contraversial view and while the theory has been favoured by conservatives like Reagan, its also been as popular with liberals like JFK. personally, i would say taxing someone at a marginal rate of over 75% which is somewhat frequent isn't reli helpful to anyone. these are two very different points, one makes sense, the other is just confusing.

    i don't really get the importance of "rich" people either...money comes from someone, the great government in the sky gets it from someone, it isn't free money raining down from heaven. businesses provide jobs and to start a business to employ people you need money which either comes from a bank or your pocket. so jobs come from that money..."rich" people aren't really important, "rich" people nowadays "work" for their money far more than in the past but still i don't understand how they can be identified as a relevant group within this question. but also logic dictates that if you are receiving money from someone in exchange for labour (if they aren't counterfeiting) they are getting it from someone else and if you have enough to pay someone else you are probablly rich...so by logic if you are defining a job as paid labour how could it come from anywhere else?...its not even reli a question, it just common sense...

    so talking about actual economic units like businesses or something is far more valuable wheras rich people doesn't make sense...i mean is your point that the rich hoard money or something?
    The massive economic crisis was created by the very wealthy. Those in charge of banks like Lehman Bros and Bear Stearns were paid tens of millions per year to run them. The economic crisis stemed directly from their decisions to create market for sub prime ending and over lending.

    You have written a lot but said very little of relevance.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    What proportion of these were created by wealthy people?
    Define wealthy.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    The massive economic crisis was created by the very wealthy. Those in charge of banks like Lehman Bros and Bear Stearns were paid tens of millions per year to run them. The economic crisis stemed directly from their decisions to create market for sub prime ending and over lending.

    You have written a lot but said very little of relevance.
    So it wasn't lead from the historically low Fed target rate then?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crcr)
    technology can create new jobs but not with a large degree of government intervention stifling investment and occupational mobility.
    But that didn't happen in the UK though... All governments over the last 30 years have been incredibly pro-business providing either low taxation or large incentives (or indeed both) to businesses, including massive changes to the HE sector to make it more suitable for the outsourcing requirements of business in the UK.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by brokenangel)
    End of the day even if they arent creating many jobs they have earned that money, less tax and they will be more incouraged to reinvest. Current way it stands if your already wealthy what is the motivation to go out and expand your buisness when you know you are going to lose huge proportions of any wealth you generate to tax
    I think you are just repeating capitalist propaganda. Where did Philip Green invest the £1.4 billion he got tax free?

    Its a well know fact that small business drives economic growth and increased employment. Owners of small business are not usually in the top 10% of the wealthiest people. Owners of big buinesses are more intent on financial engineering and tax avoidance then employing more people.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Define wealthy.
    People with a lot of money.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    People with a lot of money.
    Around 90% of them in that case.

    (assuming by 'money' you mean 'assets')

    If you meant actual money then closer to 98%.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    So it wasn't lead from the historically low Fed target rate then?
    No.

    Poor decision making is understandable in stupid or msinformed people. In people who are not stupid and have sufficient information, its obviously hubris.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.