Spacekiwi wrote:I have to say i dont really see the point in selling assests to cover short term deficits.
It´s part of the ideological belief that governments should not own or operate anything.
Spacekiwi wrote:assest rich and cash poor suggests a need to modify the in and outgoings, but releasing assests to cover a drain for a short while leaves you worse off further own the track, especially if those assests are currently returning dividends at the moment.
Most of them were profitable, some extremely so. The maker of Absolut Vodka for example, the parent company was sold off, then the buyer sold off parts of the company for a bit more than they bought the whole thing for in the first place.
Ideological blindfolds to the max. Morons couldn´t even manage to sell it at a realistic price.
*****
TheMonster wrote:Reducing rates always ought to help spur employment, simply because it leaves people more money to spend/invest, but other policies can negate that effect.
Only in theory. And rarely in reality.
Random example, if i buy twice as much food during a month, does this affect anyones employment? It might, but it´s quite possible that it´s merely a matter of scale that falls within the already existing framework.
Also, that suppostition assumes that any money not paid as taxes automatically stay within the tax payers nation.
And then there´s the bothersome little fact that investment is essentially a nonexistant thing today, >99% of all money that goes into shares or similar, is a roll of the dice in an attempt to make quick cash based on expectations in the stock/financial market games.
That money actually more often than not has NEGATIVE effects on the economy because it promotes extreme shortsightedness from companies, because it´s only the next quarterly result that matters.
And then there´s the thing about WHAT the money is spent on, the more it´s spent on luxury or exclusive items, the less beneficial to society it generally is, because it rarely generates any additional employment or financial activity.
If the current marginal tax rates are above the peak, then lowering those rates does increase revenues. If you're using some form of progressive taxation with multiple brackets, it's possible for some of those rates to be on each side of the peak, so reducing all of the rates ends up collecting more taxes from the higher brackets and less from the lower.
And those ideas are among the ones that have pretty much been shot down yes. Doesn´t work that way.
In the aftermath of our previous rightwing government disaster, in 1990s, this idea was tried. Biggest taxcuts ever, which according to economical predictions were going to provide lots of economical improvement overall, in reality the upsized economy managed less than 10% than all predictions promised.
And that was with VERY high marginal taxes, where the public sector was around 2/3 of the economy.
Essentially meaning that if the Laffer curve had any truth in it, it needs to look more like a roller-coaster on crack, than a curve.
The sane thing to do in that situation is to only reduce the highest-bracket rates until they're at the peak
That´s the worst thing you can do actually.
Because if you add money to rich, vast majority of it wont be spent on anything that helps the economy.
but politically that comes off as "giving tax cuts to the rich" (a peculiar phraseology; taking less is somehow equated with "giving". I guess Haven "gave" San Martin its freedom every day it didn't invade.)
Your prejudice shows.
Unless of course you want to live in a world where civilisation is essentially non-existant?
Because that´s pretty much what public cash do, provide the stuff that is too expensive for any individual that want to do it, or needs it done.
So yes, taxation is a required part of civilisation as we know it.
And take a quick look at the last 30 years...
Where tax rates for rich has been lowered, what has the effect been? Good? Not really no. Unless you´re one of the rare few that are rich of course.
And interestingly, the disparity of incomes has increased insanely in that same time.
So tell me, what executive is truly WORTH having 300 (or even 3000) times the salary of the people doing the work of his company?
It´s become a total fantasy without any connection to reality.
Same as the stockmarket, where shares are bought and sold by the day or even by the second, it´s rather pathetic seeing this development.
And there´s people actually surprised that economies doesn´t work as they should?
Unfortunately, there is always political pressure to do things that sound good but have perverse effects, like establishing/raising minimum- and prevailing-wage levels in the name of helping workers (particularly those with low skills)
That has worked very well in Sweden since middle of the 20th century. In fact it is now that the labor unions are being undermined due to the EU and less due to the right wing chickenhawks, that it´s working less well.
which also encourage employers to invest in automation, retaining to operate the machines just the cream of the crop who can be productive enough to justify the higher wages, leaving the less-productive workers unemployed.
Only an idiot would NOT go for additional automation if it improves productivity and/or quality.
And in any decent society, those unemployed then go educate themselves to whatever else jobs exist.
This is effectively the reason why large parts of USA has become deindustrialised, while several parts of Europe, my own country among them, have managed to stave off that fate, as improved quality and productivity has allowed competition against low-wage "new" industrialising countries.
As an extension, perhaps you might like to read this:
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/r ... kweek.html"Pre-industrial workers had a shorter workweek than today's"I do so enjoy kicking at all the stupid myths that abound.
