Social Security, the easy way to fix it...

Here's a novel idea for you; people who wish to participate in the US economy need to work and/or own business in order to generate spending money. What will happen to the US economy if the 4.5 million unfilled jobs were suddenly filled? It's logical that when more people are working more stuff is being produced and the economy is growing! If you wish to take more money from those who have earned it and redistribute it to others who did not earn it, this DOES NOT grow the economy! Having government meddle in the private sector, forcing higher expenses on business, forcing higher wages, etc. also DOES NOT grow the economy! If a worker currently earns $10/hour and your socialism forces this to $20/hour, and nothing more is produced than before, this DOES NOT grow the economy! If you force higher taxes on a business, like a farmer or Google, and transfer this money to others, this is merely a redistribution of income, DOES NOT grow the economy, and is a loss to those who create jobs.

In 2000, the US workforce participation rate was 67.30 and today it is 62.80. This is the number of Americans of working age employed plus unemployed but looking for work. What happened to 4.5% of the American workforce?? Don't know how many workers this represents but I'll guess 7-7.5 million no longer are in the workforce.

If you truly believe the lower and middle classes have been 'gutted' or 'screwed' then I suggest they screwed themselves by not competing for their best places in the economy, acquiring better jobs, upward mobility, etc. You have 7-7.5 million who have simply dropped out. You have another 8-9 million who are chronically unemployed. And you have perhaps 50+ more million workers who refuse to advance themselves by acquiring more education and skills. In what possible way can you grow the economy, increase income, with this stuff going on...

 

You think they don't?

More people will be working.

It's logical if if people don't have the money to buy more stuff more stuff won't be produced.

If you wish to take more money from working people and redistribute to the richest who own the companies, this DOES NOT growth the economy!

The working people spend it, creating demand for products and services and jobs.

The richest stick big chunks of it in the stock market and their offshore accounts where it does little in an economy awash in trillions of idle capital.

The Govt should stop the trickle down policies that have redistributed so much of the income and wealth in this country.

Retired mostly.

Of course. What happened was that in 1981 the bottom 90% of Americans started not competing, stop acquiring better jobs, upward mobility, etc., and stoped advancing themselves and acquiring eduction.



The fact that this happened at the exact same time of the Reagan "trickle down" revolution is just one big coinky dinky.

Do you ever stop to think how pathetic you sound in your desperate attempts to coddle and apologize for the richest?

Because for heaven's sake, the 1% getting about 20% of the nation's income and having about 40% of the nation's wealth, doubled since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution, just isn't enough for you, is it?

Now you want to gut SS so the richest can get even more.

You dodge this question every time I ask it, for obvious reasons, but your every post raises it again. Just how much more of the national income and wealth do you want the richest to have?

 

Well...how many have dropped out of the workforce, how many are chronically unemployed, how many are in prison, etc.? These numbers add up to big numbers which are a burden on the government.

If you redistribute money already in the economy, and you don't produce more, you have not grown the economy.

Companies don't take anything from employees? Companies provide opportunities for employees.

This is absurd...all people poor or wealthy spend.

All of your poor lower and middle class depend on the stock market for their pensions and retirement, etc. Institutional buyers of equities are moving around huge amounts of cash owned by those outside of your 1% or 10%.

Makes no difference why they are out of the workforce but it helps explain why your economy only grows at 2-2.5%.

Everything you mentioned here is available to every American so perhaps you should study why so many Americans appear to fail...

 

I disagree for the fundamental and obvious reason that if it was so easy to do it would have been done 40 years ago! There is no industry or government conspiracy to hold down people's retirement! In fact the more they have the better off industry and government is...therefore...if it could be done it would have been done...

 

Market forces would demand that I pay it in increased wages. The invisible hand works for everyone. Government edicts do not change this.

Raising taxes on businesses does not equate to less cost to the citizen. Employees, customers and small investors pay the taxes.

 

I'm not suggesting g there's a conspiracy. I'm suggesting that the government is inept and that it's well intentions have created a generational disaster. Privatization corrects this.

 

Why would market forces demand you pay increased wages? Why aren't market forces demanding you pay increased wages now?

But it doesn't work for no reason.

Depends. However, as a general rule, I'm not in favor of high taxes on businesses. Business taxes should be low.

The people who benefit from the business structure -- owners, top management -- show be taxed more instead.

 

Free market forces dictate that an employer pay what he has to to retain good productive employees, while paying the least he has to in order to retain customers.

I assure you, if the government eliminated the employer split and put it on the employee, employees would demand higher wages. As an employer, I would automatically increase wages to compensate.

 

But where talking about the entire class of workers here, the 90%. You're acting as if everyone stopped working and that's why they haven't shared in the gains that have virtually all gone to the richest since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution.

That's not the case at all. That is just your attempting to justify more of the the benefits of the economy going to the richest.

But when you redistribute it to the wealthy, they don't spend much of it. When it goes to the 90%, they spend it, creating demand for products, which results in businesses producing more, and you grow the economy.

What does that have to do with what I said?

The 90% spend virtually all their income. Their richest only a fraction.

Poor and middle class have a tiny portion of the stocks. It's the rich that own them.

No, because economic growth has not been constrained by labor shortage. It has been constrained by demand and spending shortage.

Dodge the question again, eh? The reason is self-evident.

 

I understand that. I took Econ 101.

But you're claiming that if they cut the employer's SS you'd pay your employees more. I asked why you wouldn't pocket more profit and you claimed that market forces would demand you pay them more.

Again, why would "market forces" demand that you pay your employees more? Why aren't those same "market forces" demanding you pay them more now?

Your "assurance" is not convincing. Why aren't the employees demanding higher wages now?

Why would you "automatically" increase wages? Why don't you "automatically" increase wages now? Why wouldn't you "automatically" pocket the tax savings yourself?

Your attempting to justify baseless conclusions with more baseless conclusions.

 

An abrupt government edict would call for an abrupt correction in the private market. Employers worth would be exposed suddenly. Again, as an employer, I would have no problem with the adjustment.

 

"Employer's worth would be exposed suddenly"? What are you babbling about?

Right. You'd just pocket the extra money yourself. So would most every other business owner. The richest would get even richer while the middle class would get shafted again.

Just like the rest of the trickle down policies since Reagonomics.

 

Not surprised at your ignorant opinion of businesses and the free market. How likely is it that businesses would reduces workers pay by 7.65%, while employees are forced to pay that much more to the government?

 

LOL! Not surprised you'd come up with some ignorant blather like that when you're been owned.

 

When you use the term "national income" I assume you are referring to the sum of the incomes of each individual in the nation. If a rich person were to receive a lower income, two things would happen. His income would go down, and the sum would go down. So how does either of those two outcomes help anyone?

 

I'm stating simple market facts that you cannot comprehend. You also assume and wrongfully accuse me of just taking the funds for profit. You clearly know nothing about business from an owners side.

There is no way I would just reduce wagers 7.65% now, or if the government changed an eddict.

 

Sure thing. Tell us again how if employers didn't have to pay 1/2 of SS "Employer's worth would be exposed suddenly" and they'd all suddenly give more money to their employees instead of pocketing it themselves.

Gee, business owners like you taking more profit instead of paying their workers more. What an economically ignorant thing of me to think, eh? Thanks for pointing it out for us.

Who said anything about reducing wages?

 

False premise leading to false conclusion.

If an business owner paid his employees more, is income would go down (at least temporarily until the greater demand for products and service increased his revenues) but the workers' income would go up.

Diverting more and more of the nation's income to the richest means less and less gets spent into the economy, driving demand for more goods and services.

How does that outcome help the economy?

 

For the government to transfer the employer split to the employee and the employer not apply his split to wages would mean he is, by government eddict, reducing the employees wage. This isn't rocket science.

 

And let me guess. Based upon your economic theories, you are going to support the use of government force to make employers pay their employees more.

 

To some degree. Employees should be paid time and a half for more than 40 hours worked. Unions should be empowered to represent more employees. There should a minimum wage. FICA taxes should be cut. Poorer kids should be able to go to college without running up a ruinous amount of debt.

Basically, reverse trickle down.

 

OK, I didn't understand your were talking about transferring the employer's share to the employee but just eliminating it. I agree that, at least initially, such a transfer would probably result in most employers increase the wage correspondingly.

 

All of which requires initiating aggression against you fellow man. Sorry, I can't get behind such thuggery.