Rich People Don't Create Jobs...

I agree, I meant we were not talking about increasing the tax cuts for those paying no taxes... as 10% or 100% tax cut is still zero

 

As long as we use income as a tax base, I don't think that's possible. It would cause low margin businesses to pay more in taxes than they could make in profit.




​

 

This is the common complaint of the luddite. Humans being free from repetitive labor may open whole new vistas for human endeavors. So far, that has always been the case. The only time that humans suffer is when the state gets in the way by limiting peaceful human choices and holding back progress to appease a fearful populace.

And will free the time of the highly intelligent, capable brain surgeon to focus on other areas of the brain, bringing more knowledge to humanity than artificial intelligence is yet able to do. And, some day, that work will also be replaced, and new endeavors will be found.

As long as there is a state, it will be used for the benefit of the politically connected before it benefits anyone else. Rich people know this because they understand that power is the means to get the things that wealth can not. What do you propose to do that does not concentrate more power into the hands of the few in order to "benefit humanity"? Highly centralized power has never been known to work for the benefit of mankind before first greatly enriching those in power and treating the masses like animals.

 

Everyone pays taxes. The problem is the myopic thinking that the personal income tax is the only tax a person/household pays. "Income taxes" are generally imposed on "profits" that are reflected by "net income" after deductions. Roughly 47% of all households are "operating at a loss" because they don't have enough income so they are not subject to a tax on profits. Income tax cuts only benefit those that have more than enough income to begin with.

Most taxes are not based upon "profit" such as Social Security taxes (imposed on gross income derived from labor), sales taxes, utility taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, etc.. If we want to provide a benefit to those that are "operating at a loss" (47% of all households) then the tax cuts have to be on taxes that are not based upon profit.

 

A fundamental problem is believing that Artificial Intelligence and Techonology (AI&T) is limited to replacing repetitive labor and that is not the case. Not by a longshot. In the past the robot (technology) was limited to repetitive tasks but that's not been the case for quite some times because a computer can do millions and billions of tasks and directed by the computer the robot has endless possibilities for what it can do.

As I noted, with a few exceptions, everything we do today to produce goods and services can be replaced AI&T and the exceptions are based exclusively on what I'd refer to as the "humanities" such as art and philosophy. Two probems exist for this. First of all most people aren't artists or philosophers and secondly these professions generally don't pay much to begin because they're not generally in demand.

When's the last time you sat down to read a book of philosophy (that was printed by a machine)? When was the last time you purchased an original piece of art? When's the last time you went to a concert?

Hell, even half of our action movies today are based upon CG (computer generated grahpics) technology and even the acting profession has suffered because of the computer. We don't need thousands of actors for a battle scene because the computer generates the armies on the screen from nothing. We have virtually life-like animated movies with no actors at all and a computer can even add the dialogue if we want it to. A computer can easily reproduce the Mona Lisa and few would be able to tell the difference today and no one would be able to tell the difference in the future.

So yes, some people will find a niche in the future but they will be a very rare exception and it won't be based upon what people need but instead based upon what a very small percentage of people enjoy.

The problem is that with all we really need being supplied by AI&T there is no income to afford that which we enjoy.

 

So the government owns the $127 in my bank account too? Well I guess that's not too bad. That, plus the $7 in my wallet gives them a whopping $134 that I could possibly owe.

 

You just set the limit because no matter what we can possibly conceive it will be replaced and soon we reach the point where it will be replaced in nanoseconds and not even months or days. As soon as it's conceived it will already be obsolete from a human labor standpoint. Basically if you can think of it the computer and the robot will be able to produce it completely eliminating the necessity for human labor. That day is far closer than many seem to appreciate.

Without human labor the economy, as we know it, collapses.

 

Adding half a million more job losses on top of those already lost in the recession isn't a particularly good method of kick starting the economy.

So what else is new?

 

Because, as conservatives have pointed out repeatedly, GDP growth is too slow. Because spending growth is too slow.

Year - % chng real personal expenditures
1982 1.4
1983 5.7
1984 5.3
1985 5.3
Average: 4.4

1992 3.7
1993 3.5
1994 3.9
1995 3.0
Average 3.5

2002 2.5
2003 3.1
2004 3.8
2005 3.5
Average 3.2

2010 2.0
2011 2.5
2012 2.2
2013 2.0
Average 2.2

Source data: http://bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1#reqid=9&step=1&isuri=1
Table 2.3.1. Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Personal Consumption Expenditures by Major Type of Product

Yada yada, it's the lazy evil middle classes' fault. You're like a broken record.

90% of Americans just got lazy in 1981. The fact that was the Reagan "trickle down" revolution started is just a big coinky dinky.

Got it. Maybe others are impressed by your "reasoning."

 

A fundamental problem is "belief." While I love a good vision and dreams, the reality is that you and I have no proof of what AI will do or create. By the mid-80's, computers were already doing the work of 3 trillion people, and yet people were still employed.

Nanotechnology will likely be more revolutionary than robotics.

You have no idea what humans will find to do with the massive amount of time that will be freed up from menial labor.

I read all the time, and I attend the occasional concert. Entertainment is a huge industry and if it's unleashed from government regulations and stifling unionism, it will likely only grow bigger.

"Suffered" meaning that they aren't as protected as they were in the past. Color me unsympathetic. I love that just about anyone with a bit of computing power and some creativity can create a movie on par with the best action flicks of the 80's, and it's getting better every day.

In other words, people who do nothing but breathe are replaced by computers that can do whatever it was that they are doing. Well, they'll need to find other things to do. The great thing is that as basic needs become less scarce, people won't need to work as much in order to survive, thus freeing up their time to spend on other things.

People have been saying that exact same thing since Ludd allegedly broke two stocking frames. In his time, 20 out of every 21 people lived in drudgery in agriculture. Your concern, apparently, is that modern day drudgery is necessary to keep people sustained. How are you different from Ludd?

How much income do you need?

- - - Updated - - -

Then there will be a different economy. Computers and AI will not eliminate scarcity.

 

What it the optimal GDP growth rate? With annual population growth from 2010 thru 2013 at only 0.77% and inflation averaging 2.1% and falling, wouldn't average GDP growth of 2.2% be sufficient? Weren't the high GDP growth rates you quote caused by the Japanese asset bubble, the Dot Com bubble, and the housing bubble respectively?

 

People who (*)(*)(*)(*) away their lives, never take steps to achieve something better, are going to be left wanting. Now you like to blame this on Reagan and maybe this sounds good in a political diatribe, but it is meaningless in reality.

Like I keep asking you "how is your ideological path working for you so far?" Maybe your 99% who are wanting can print and sell t-shirts that say "I hate Reagan"?

No one I know can effect the past so why spend all of your life in the past? No one I know can even effect the current moment because time passes faster than our thoughts and actions. So the ONLY place you and your 99% can find something different is to take steps to effect the future to achieve whatever it is you desire. If you want higher income then there are obvious steps to achieve this. Just as there are steps to achieve more wealth, lose a few pounds, boost our self esteem, etc. ALL STEPS are each person's responsibility to define and achieve.

Lastly, and I had no idea, but Reagan must have been one great person to have such lasting effects on 99% of our wage earners! To think the man has been out of office since 1989, dead since 2004, and all of those Rep and Dem presidents and Congress' combined over the decades have never been able to turn around evil Reagan policy?

 

That must be it. 90% of lazy evil middle class Americans just started "pissing away their lives" in 1981 which just by massive coincidence was when we had the Reagan "trickle down" revolution.

I mean, it couldn't be the higher middle class taxes, lower MW and overtime laws, and suppressing the unions that leveraged higher wages.

It must be the evil lazy middle class just started pissing their lives away at that exact same time.

What a coinky dinky.

 

I don't know, but what makes you think 2.2% is optimal? We've averaged about 3.5% real growth 1950-2000, and I don't think there has been a negative 1.3 percentage point change in population growth to account for that.

 

Whatever the differences in society and industry and economy, from one decade to the next, with mounting innovation, people and cultures will adapt. School kids today and 30 years from now will be educated differently than we did in 1960. Careers and the education/skills required for these jobs will be different. Kids who apply themselves to the ritual of preparation for adult life will do just fine. Those who don't, who drop out, will remain a burden on society forever. If we truly have a transition phase to higher levels of robotics and automation and AI and other technologies it won't happen over night and certainly not by 2045...

 

Well...I'll take the option of personal responsibility while you cling to blaming Reagan for everything today. Let's see...which makes more sense...personal responsibility or blaming Reagan? Which step can actually be achieved...personal responsibility or blaming Reagan? I get it!!! It's way easier to blame Reagan than it is to take personal responsibility for our decisions and lives...

 

Of course you want to blame the lazy evil middle class and not the "trickle down" policies of the Reagan revolution designed to make the richest richer.

1% apologists like you do everything they can to protect if not extend the privileges and benefits that "trickle down" policies have bestowed upon them that have enabled them to get more and more of the nation's income and wealth.

Because more is never enough.

 

But inflation between 1950 and 2000 averaged 4%, for a negative 1.9% change. If GDP growth outpaces population combined with inflation, how sustainable is it?

 

Are you claiming that during the growth period after Reagan cut taxes the middle class didn't get richer, after Gingrich and Kasich cut taxes and sent growth into overdrive the middle class didn't get richer and after the Bush tax cuts went into full effect the middle class didn't get richer in that long period of sustained growth?

And how have they done under the Obama trickle up policies?

 

Well take that up with your state, what we are discussing here is FEDERAL tax policy and federal tax results. The fact is not only does the bottom 50% pay little if any federal tax those at the bottom make money of the income tax/FICA tax system or break even at worst.

 

Reimbursed through the EITC although why shouldn't everyone pay to fund their retirement? The poor also get a higher return on the money they do contribute while the highest earners lose money in the SS system.

Not subject to federal taxes except for those on phone usage which will you agree we get rid of those?

So you don't think the poor should pay their fair share for use of the public roads?

What taxes are you going to cut for them?

Or how about this, we do like after the Reagan tax cuts, the Gingrich/Kaisch tax cuts and the Bush tax cuts and create jobs and put them all to work with growing incomes so they can afford to pay a share of taxes that amounts to something.

 

The whole Federal Reserve system was designed to make the rich richer and protect bankers from risk. This became especially true when the dollar was completely removed from the gold standard. Government apologists like you continue to advocate for more economic controls as the previous controls you wanted further move wealth from the productive to the crony capitalists all the while expanding the dependent classes.

 

don't disagree, we could remove the cap for the rich on social security and lower the % per dollar everyone but the rich currently pay

 

actually, it has nothing to do with that, and the labor market doesnt work like that at all. It works largely by supply and demand - the worker will work for whatever other workers at a wage that's basically set by the producer, who's often large and has monopoly wage setting power. There are no such things as "bottom line" costs for shelter, energy, etc for the worker. Don't believe me?--just visit a third world nation.

The past 2 decades have seen the rise of a new class of ultra-rich people in the US. These people are almost entirely finance people. Some of them are CEOs but many are fund mangers--ie people who own businesses that produce nothing and do nothing for society. And why is CEO pay increasing? Are the companies being more productive? Are they producing more for society? Not really. The reason CEOs and fund managers are seeing their incomes rise (and not by a little, by a LOT) is that they've changed the rules of the game. Their compensation is no longer tied to performance. So essentially , they've become leeches on society.

I see our economy as a fixed pie. Becuase annual growth rates aren't very high (around 1% nowadays, which basically just keeps up with population growth), the pie isn't really getting any bigger. So if someone is making more money, someone else is making less. Easy logic. And if you see fund managers and CEOs taking home significantly more amount of money, that money MUST come from somewhere. Logically, it must. And if you see that middle class wages are going down, the logical conclusion MUST be that the money is being transferred from the middle class workers to the top-level executives. And since we've already established that these executives have done nothing to deserve a raise, (there's no evidence that they're performing better than they used to; indeed many of the people provide ZERO value to society) it is clear to me that this is an injustice in our nation.