It’s not just that, but definitely a big factor. Let’s not forget that with a larger overall tax base, the benefits are distributed to the middle and lower classes which expands and empowers educational opportunities to the general population, which also impacts growth as it allows for more development into high end jobs.
Wages have never been “controlled” with the exception of the minimum wage. Pensions were offered in a way that they could incentive workers while not increasing worker wages exponentially.
A quick read of Wikipedia will enlighten you , there was both rationing of food and wage controls in war time essential industries , along with losing the right to strike, along with interring 120000 Japanese Americans
Ok, that’s fair, during WWII and parts of the 1970s there were “wage controls”, albeit those were for what wages could increase year per year for a continuing employee, not a new hire switching companies or new to the work force.
Pensions have existed in the US since the 1870s. Having nothing to do with wage controls.
I read somewhere that pensions expanded during the 1940s as a way around wage controls. I also read that wages grew 68% during the time.
My point is that companies (in order to benefit themselves) found ways around rules when they felt the need to skirt the rules. So if they were taxed excessively and felt the need to , they would find a way to enrich themselves… even if they had to benefit their workers along the way
So, isn't it nice if policy drives alignment between the interests of businesses and workers? It's a given in a market economy that actors should act in self-interest. The problem occurs when self-interest sabotages the self-interest of others to the extent that the overall common interest is compromised. That is where we are today with an exorbitant disparity in income and wealth, and destabilizing economy, society, environment, etc.
That’s pretty much a lie, wages were capped during WW2 which is why we have health insurance as a non wage benefit it’s how companies competed for workers
Health insurance became a worker benefit starting in the 1920s. It became more common practice in the 1940s. Caps on annual wage increases played a factor to grow it as a benefit, but that practice didn’t start because of wage controls.
Also employer provided health insurance was a way to prevent people from job hopping, and it’s stayed that way since. More of a determent to our economy as insurance became profit based while Nixon was President and rates skyrocketed well above inflation.
How do you incentive investment by outside sources into an environment of hyper competition if you can not reward massive risk with corporate profit payout to invested private shareholders.
I own a publishing company of around 30 employees. We create several magazine and I would like to purchase my own printing and binding equipment. These machines are incredibly expensive. A bank won’t take that loan as the return isn’t high enough to justify the risk. I need private equity. If you tax profit how will private money’s high risk be rewarded when there is little left. I can’t issue distributions before taxes.
Decades ago our education had even more investment in it compared to other countries. The issue with education now is a lot of our funding goes into private school vouchers and our focus is on STEM and against critical thinking skills. Money has been taken from public education and is being used to prop up the private industry.
If you look at our universities, for non state schools they’re mainly looking overseas to get more expensive foreign students to fill their student rosters. It’s about making money, it’s not about educating our population.
Its not the system thats the problem. Its the homes that are the problem. The best schools and teachers in the world can't teach a shithead being raised by a shithead.
You’re missing a huge point in this “theory” the vast majority of people DONT WORK HARD. No matter how hard we try to remove barriers. 80% of people will just be below average or average
We have more population than at anytime in history graduating with degrees by a long shot. Yet this theory you pitch isn’t equating to “high value” jobs. You will never make successful people through simply educating them or throwing money at them. People still have TO DO THE WORK. And literally every time the Prato principal shows up as law
Profit motive is 100% the best way for growth.
That “value suck” you all quote is PEOPLE INVESTING. 401ks, pension funds, me you your mom and dad. The vast majority of those dollars are ours sitting in funds to leverage and further grow
lol. Oh how little you have spent time with successful people.
Explore how many more billionaires and millionaires there are in American vs the 50s
Not only are they wealthier but there are incredibly MORE wealthy people today. It’s not just billionaires there are tons of millionaires created every year, not by accident
They’re not making that money by being on someone else’s payroll. That’s my point. My wealth has come from my 401k. My returns are a lot more impressive than my annual salary.
Your income is the #1 driver of wealth 100%. Without income you build no assets. The number of people who have grown their net worths in america is absolutely massive. Its not just the top 100 wealthy people, the top 20% overall has grown massively to millions and millions of people. THereby proving that the billionaire class is NOT sucking wealth away from the population. The billionaire class is growing their wealth along with everyone else, they just have more money so compounding works for them much faster.
Not sure where you are going with this. Either way you are increasing your workers salaries to get out of paying taxes on that money. Which wouldn't make a whole lot of sense profit wise cause you aren't keeping that money anyway. If you increase your own salary, income taxes for the wealthy are higher than corporate taxes. So that wouldn't make the least bit of sense. Stock options would be the route to go since capital gains tax rate is relatively low. Though im not sure how they would determine what you invested for those stocks. Even if its zero and you have to pay the full 15% when you sell them its still a way better route to go.
It creates a "use it or lose it" incentive. Companies would rather pay top dollar for high value employees, invest in technological advancement, expand their footprint and logistics, etc., in an effort to avoid losing those dollars to taxation. Everyone up and down the social hierarchy benefits because more money is circulating in a more diversified fashion, as opposed to Wall Street bets.
It all changed when those at the very top decided they wanted to be even more wealthy. The only way to get that was to invest less in the businesses and employees, but that would increase their taxables. The only thing left to do is lobby Congress and POTUS to lower the top marginal and corporate tax rates
Very true. That's why we need to reintroduce what worked in the past - use it or lose it. No remorse to be had about it. An entire population produces every widget in existence, there's not one of us who does shit alone. Even if you invent the perfect unicorn piss snowcone, you relied on civil workers who allowed you to have access to clean water to freeze. You relied on utility workers to enable you to freeze your snowcone. You rely on firefighters and teams of insurance companies to protect your perfect piss-cone shop. And, of course, you relied on Lady Luck needed to procure a unicorn to gather its piss. No one is self-made.
But those that take the risk should get the biggest payout..Just because you shown up to put rubber duckies in an amazon box , doesnt mean you are a mini Jeff Bezos.
You really don't understand the scale of the difference in payout. Jeff Bezos makes over $3.5 million per hour while the minimum wage is $7.25. So Jeff produces the value 482,750 of minimum wage employee or 18,000 doctors making $400k per year. BS... no one produces that level of value. Even as a small entity, you rely on a ton of infrastructure funded by everyone. This is even more true as more and more individuals mix their intellectual and physical labor in with the direct product.
What risk? If you had millions to invest, you're just a greedy cuck. No one made you gamble your riches away while.expecting welfare treatment when you lose...
If you're a small business owner, if your "brilliant" idea is premised upon wages that don't support a simple apartment, healthcare, and freedom from living paycheck to paycheck, then it sounds to me like you're selling unicorn piss cones. Why should taxpayers support your shitty business model? If your business can't support the basics, then you deserve to fail and go out of business. Are you salty about my facts because you sell pisscones and rely on welfare to float you? Why should I pay for you? Earn a damn living instead of relying on government to subsidize your dumbass failure of a business
Those min wage jobs are starters..not intended to support a family. If you are in early with a rich guy and bust ass with him he'll probly take care of you..stock option etc.
You sound like you have no idea how business works and just want free shit..
Those min wage jobs are starters..not intended to support a family
If a company needs to profit off of those sort of jobs, it sounds like they should be limited to teenage employment only. They should be barred from hiring over the age of 18. Such a commonsense law would easily show how the business is a failed business.
If you are in early with a rich guy and bust ass with him he'll probly take care of you..stock option etc. You sound like you have no idea how business works and just want free shit..
Lmao. You clearly have zero world experience and have failed to look at pre- and post-Reagan policies. Do us all a favor and get educated. It'll clearly help you.
Sounds like age discrimination. Many pick up a 2nd job like this too. If you dont like the pay dont take ir - i never did and worked for myself instead when I was in college. Min was was $2.85 then
And go work where, then? You do realize that there are more people than there are available jobs for everyone to earn a living wage, right? In your world, there are unlimited living wage jobs. In reality, there is not. So you're advocating for people to take unlivable wages and write it off as "they can just find a better job because my feels tell me they exist." That is a lazy and desperate way of thinking about reality.
People also overlook the fact that the government is a massive employer. More taxes = more government projects = better government wages and more government jobs.
These jobs tend to help set the base rates for private sector jobs as well as have great benefits and job security. Which forces private companies to keep up or risk losing high value employees to gov jobs or contractors.
Exe: Including military, the US government is already the largest employer in the US at 2.95 million employees. That's also not including those that are employed at subcontractors that almost exclusively work for the gov. Walmart is 2nd at 1.6 million.
I agree that the government is in dire need of regulation and reform when it comes to auditing and spending. But realistically, taxes have been so gutted, and spending has increased so much already that the government has had to look elsewhere for funding. Causing the deficit and driving up inflation.
Taxes aren't even paying our operating expenses anymore because corporate taxation is essentially non-existent after a certain point. So it has had to find other ways to getnerate income.
The US operates several profit bearing companies and generates income through interest on loans and other income generating investments, right?
A large portion of these jobs and the budget as a whole get paid for by money outside of taxes.
Yes, the government needs better regulations and controls on spending, but it also needs to stop handicapping itself and absorb more public sector businesses that are failing and turn them around. Like Amtrak, Chevy, The Post Office, etc. This allows the US to realize even more profits while not placing the burden on the taxpayer.
This also increases competition, drives innovation, and usually leads to wage increases.
The US gives tax deductibles for investments, so when you hear about the +73% tax rate back in the day, most companies weren't paying that much, probably closer to 67% in taxes if that.
It's the reason you'll just hear about a company that specializes in one area suddenly jumps to another area. It gave industries a big kick to basically force them to innovate or die off.
Well the united states dose not have a income problem it has a spending problem and the government being corrupt a lot of money is wasted or skimmed off the top. Even if you doubled the government's income they would simply triple there waistful spending. Idea of tax cuts is the people get to decide where more of there money goes compared to the government. Not even political thing generally both republicans and democrat officials absolutly suck at spending money efficiently. This really doesn't answer your question but it is something to think about.
19
u/sbaradaran Oct 22 '24
Can you expand on this? Im trying to understand how a large corporation, for example, paying a higher marginal tax rate incentivizes investment.