Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Giving the wealthy a dose of their own medicine

Posted 6 years ago on Nov. 12, 2012, 2:08 p.m. EST by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The wealthy say that low skilled workers deserve low wages because there are more of them available than needed for each job. The law of supply and demand, or the free market, should determine price, not human need. There should be no minimum wage at all because the market will shed them as their wages increase. Better to have all employed at a low wage than to have a few employed at a high wage. (Of course they always fail to mention in their argument that a low wage also means higher profits for them).

Since the wealthy think there should be no limit set on the lower boundary of wages, it would be logical to say that there should be no boundary set on the upper limit of taxation. If the market should determine one, then shouldn't the market determine both?

So to be fair, since the wealthy favor letting the wages of the low skill workers drop just above the point that they will refuse to work, let's raise the tax rate on the upper wages of the high skill workers just below the point that they will refuse to work. This takes out the arbitrary nature of setting taxes rates and depends entirely on the free market to decide. Surely the wealthy would welcome the wisdom of such a system!

The health of any economy is dependent on the rates of both labor and taxation. Labor should be priced just above and income should be taxed just below the point that harm is done to the economy. To set limits depending on the selfishness of a few to determine the health of only the upper part of the economic body and not the lower eventually results in the collapse of the entire body. We tax the rich not just for our benefit, but for their own.



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 6 years ago

Applebee's CEO and Millionare Zane Tankel vs. Working Americans

Monday, 12 November 2012 14:39 By Thom Hartmann and Sam Sacks , The Daily Take | Op-Ed


[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 6 years ago

Tell us why you came up with such a moronic idea? Are you that bitter against success that you feel the need to criticize success?

Do you think a 18 year old with no experience should be paid the same as a 35 year old with 4 years of college and several years of job skills to add to his experience?

It's apparent that you are probably around 14 years of age with this kind of thinking or maybe you are around 18 living at home thinking you know everything about how to solve the Obama divide - rich vs the rest of society.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 6 years ago

I have nothing against success, just the excessive portion that it often extracts from the lower portion of the economy. The heath of the whole economy is more important than the upper portion.

If you look back to 1929 you will see similar economic inequality as we see now. Either you choose to take care of the health of every part of the economic body now, or the entire body will collapse later.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 6 years ago

I have to laugh in my agreement with your logic.

[-] 1 points by Misaki (893) 6 years ago

let's raise the tax rate on the upper wages of the high skill workers just below the point that they will refuse to work.

It would be good if high skill workers did work less. This point is commonly misunderstood even by economists.


[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

creative workers expand ideas for work through play

[-] 1 points by Misaki (893) 6 years ago

They can create new product types.

Or they can just increase efficiency. The first type of innovation leads to more jobs. The second type leads to fewer jobs. We have been inventing more jobs for the past 80 years (since the Great Depression showed there was a huge problem in society) but there still aren't enough for everyone.

We don't need to create more jobs to fix the problem since the existing types are enough if we just share the work. Innovation happens naturally in a free market so we will end up at the same place, just with less unemployment and suffering.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 6 years ago

I think you misunderstand the post and economics.

[-] 1 points by Misaki (893) 6 years ago


Do YOU think that working harder helps the unemployed?

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 6 years ago

They are unemployed because the economic body is ill. The cure is to shunt the excess economic lifeblood from the upper to the lower extremities. If the upper body slows, the entire body slows.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 6 years ago

Sort of a demonstration of Liebig's law.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 6 years ago

Interesting. I'll need to think about that a bit.


[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 6 years ago

It is, of course, a broader application of the principle which specifically relates to the botanical phenomenon. The law of minimum can be applied to many economic issues.

[-] 0 points by Misaki (893) 6 years ago

That is exactly what working less would do.

Rich people are already spending their money on $9000 dresses. But they are earning even more money than they are spending. Cut off the incoming supply and eventually the money will "drain" back into the rest of the system. The more rich people do this, the faster it happens.

Or do you really think that after a year of Occupy protests, there are still people who don't support higher taxes because they aren't aware of how unequal the country is?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

dresses only cost $9000 because someone is willing and able to pay that

not me

but whoever can has the world on a string

[-] 1 points by Misaki (893) 6 years ago

What if they want unemployment to be fixed so they aren't depressed every time they read a newspaper?

There are limits to what money can buy. (And a rich person can ignore the world's problems but only if they don't step outside their mansion.)

Where the rich have failed, it is necessary for the 99% to act.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 6 years ago

I think we agree too much wealth is flowing upstream. The way to accomplish this is to raise taxes on the rich and raise wages for the poor.

Cutting the rich's working hours would be detrimental to the entire economy, because if they don't produce enough, the entire economy does not produce enough either.

[-] 0 points by ftrp (-95) 6 years ago

the rich wont be hurt by higher taxes, they can pay it ( and not feel it)or shelter their money.

[-] 0 points by Misaki (893) 6 years ago

Maybe the last thing I said wasn't clear. Everyone knows by now how unequal society is. But they still aren't enthusiastic about higher taxes (or deficits).

I pointed this out several months ago but OWS was not willing to take the next logical step of placing the blame on the middle class.

How many widgets does a CEO produce? Will a factory cease to function if the CEO sets an example by working less? You confuse pay with "contribution to the economy".

If a CEO (or other 1%'ers) work less it might cause their corporation to be slightly less competitive on the world market, but this is not guaranteed because CEOs do many tasks that other people can do as well and this can slightly worsen their performance in their "main" tasks due to exhaustion and so on.

But suppose the 1% set an example by working less, and everyone was employed but GDP dropped from $15 trillion to $14 trillion because the US's product quality dropped slightly (from skilled people working less). Are you really saying that the improvements in equality, employment, less crime, less people going to prison (since they don't need to commit crimes to survive), fewer people surviving on welfare instead of working, more people with access to health care... none of this is worth a drop in GDP from $15 to $14 trillion?

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 6 years ago

If the CEO is not there to make important decisions, the company suffers. He may not assemble the widgets, but his job is just as crucial as those who do.

Cutting the number of hours worked does not restore health to the economic body. Increasing the economic blood flow to the lower extremities, the lower and middle class does.

[-] 1 points by Misaki (893) 6 years ago

People have higher income when they have a job than when they're unemployed on welfare. There's your "economic blood flow" to the middle and lower classes.

[-] -1 points by ftrp (-95) 6 years ago

over 30 hrs, a company must provide obama care, the effect, more companies cutting workers hours. have more than 50 workers, the company must provide obama care, the effect, companies firing workers. cumulative effect,....more people getting paid less, more on unemployment, more people on welfare and more people getting food stamps. net loss for the country, net gain for the administration that wants the people to be dependent on govt.