I think i have finally got a good idea for this - this is where people need to out earn the cost of normal daily living. this is encouraged for the state as it will win the votes, of course, and, with this strategy, they will stand to gain financially even if it is not followed, of course. The trick is to over tax companies that price their goods too high. the earnings of the country in question should be analysed and a boundary for their own personal taste of products, like the newspaper and maybe sweets for their children should be take into account. this will lead to more savings, the banks will benefit, over a long term, as as people remove funds, others will deposit them, and so forth. If the company was to push prices up, regardless, then there will be heavy fines. if there becomes an environment where they complain, foreign companies can pull out while there will still be a market for gains in these sectors.
The way i see it, it either is affordable, which means they kept heir promise and will get votes, or it is not, and someone else will come in promising them that, and winning the major elections.
A product is priced too high, according to the government, the government charges a business with added tax. The business passes the tax onto consumers. The price of goods goes up. Repeat. What do you get? I swirling mess of a cycle that drives up prices forever.
Another new government bureaucracy funded by a new tax is not a new idea. It is certainly not a reform. Just get rid of the minimum wage and subsidize very low wage menial labor. Now that would be radical change. The USG, state and local governments have plenty of revenue to do that without raising taxes or further punishing employers.
A virtual supermajority of Americans are now very afraid of Big Government. Politicians who insist on making it bigger and more powerful are no longer very attractive to voters - they are frightening and repulsive.
With all this inflation, that is unnecessary as long as you keep your profits moderate, some other companies will come in that offer the goods at the right price, driving prices down. the problem comes from greed, under a government agreed margin.
A typical household budget is a loaf of bread and milk every now and then, water and electricity, and maybe enough for other basic things.
So the price of an iPhone should be tied to the price of a loaf of bread? What bread? The cheap white bread that's like $1 a loaf, or the marbled rye thats $10 for 10 slices?
I'm sorry you're not making sense here you said Brett Nortje said: ↑ The trick is to over tax companies that price their goods too high. Define "too high" and what kind of tax which would only be added to the price of the goods.
Taxing things has never made them cheaper. Overtaxing companies mean they have to push their prices up to pay the taxes. Not really.
Companies generally price their goods and services in relation to their cost of doing business, and competition in the free market. Granted, when regulations are eliminated (Trump), or relaxed (Clinton), some bad 'dudes' will most certainly take advantage, as have been proven. Over taxing is not a viable solution.
The problem is that as soon as wages go up, prices go up. by making sure prices stay down, through taxing them if they are too high, or, break their cap for the market price maximum for that product line, they get taxed extra, so, the poor will benefit from state welfare.
If wages go up and prices stay down, the result is layoffs and finally the closing of the business. There has to be a good profit margin for the business person to continue doing business.
If it is done right, prices will not go up while salaries will. this means the owners of the businesses that are not raising prices will still be able to afford each other's goods. it is not about raise equals raise, it is abut raise equals better living conditions, even for owners and office staff.
Who determines when the price is too high and how much the company can make? Do you invest for your retirement?
That is done by the public protector and unions and social workers, of course. Investing for your retirement would still be possible through pension plans.
Who is the "public protector"? And who are they protecting? Business owners and investors are the public too you know. Unions represent workers not the owners and investors and only represent about 6% of the private workforce what do they know about setting prices and why do they get to tell the owners what they can do with their money and investment? What on earth do social workers know about business management and investing? I asked you do YOU save and invest for your retirement?
The business owner generally determines pricing based upon costs and how to price the product or services to make whatever he or she needs relative to profits. The free market has a huge influence on the pricing, or else the product or service won't sell. Controlling costs is crucial to any financial decisions. The largest cost in any business is employment expense, which comprises 75%-80% of the overhead. I did invest in the stock market, and got nailed in the Clinton recession and Bush recession, so now I invest in real estate properties with what is left, and rent them out. I am very concerned with an unqualified, non pragmatic, defiant Trump, since we are headed for another recession with him at the helm in my view.