Do you really want to get rid of that 10th man, the one that was paying the Lion share of the drinks? Where will your jobs be then? your paycheck? Going to someone else, overseas perhaps?
There are many flaws with your example. First of all, their net worth was determined before they walked into the door, with no discussion on if it was fair how they got to that state in the first place.
Here is an example of why tax cuts for the rich don't "work" at improving the economy. Say the average McDonald's franchise has a net profit of $1 million per year. Say an owner pays the corporate tax rate of 30%, so they paid $300,000 million in corporate income tax. Say it has been reduced to 20% (I think it is at 21% now), so for 2018 they will pay $200,000 in taxes. They have an extra $100,000 in one year. What are they going to do with that money? Are they going to make more burgers and fries? Well, that depends on whether people are ordering more burgers and fries. It depends on demand. Without a reason to buy more burgers and fries the owner is not going to buy more burgers and fries. Same with with hiring more people, why hire people to stand and do nothing when there is not more demand for either goods or services? As for raising wages, phhht. Legally public corporate officials have a responsibility to put the welfare and interest of the corporation and its stockholders first. Which means maximizing profits, which means paying employees as little as you can legally or economically can get away with. There might be the odd actor who does differently, but overall unlikely.
I am surprised you care enough to mention it, but then I don't really know your position on environmental issues. There are economic reasons it is dumb too. If the drilling were to happen in your backyard would getting a little more of your money be worth it?
Going back to my example of a McDonald's owner…. What the heck do they do with that money? They can't *create* more demand. The market for McDonald's is pretty much saturated in the U.S., so, no, they won't be opening more stores either. What is the purpose of allowing them to keep that money, other than it is theirs? (Money that they got and were able to grow in our system, a system of which we should all be beneficiaries of…. should they not give back?)?
They will likely sit on or save that money, taking it effectively out of the economy. If the government takes it, it has two basic options for it.
1) Give it directly to poor/middle class people (social assistance, child tax benefit), which will go straight back into the economy as they buy goods and services to take care of their households' needs or improving their quality of life.
2) Spend it on programs and services for citizens (child care, education, health care, community centres & libraries, infrastructure, safety/security), which pumps money back into the economy in the wages for the people working in those fields (and on equipment needed), while improving citizens (that is all of our) quality of life.
Yes, there is some corruption and waste.
Health care is comparable to food. The government doesn't have to force people to buy food, but it doesn't have to force people to buy health care either. They both have pretty inflexible demand, when people need it they will, if at all possible, buy it.
The way people get access to health care is either thru health insurance or by paying up front….
Look, I am Canadian, as a Canadian citizen I have government paid health insurance. I am not going to argue this point with you further… If you don't think that is cruel and inhumane to deny health care to people needing critical or urgent care because they couldn't afford health insurance premiums or can't afford to pay up front, well, I don't know what to tell you. Other than medicare for all. Single payer. Universal health care.
But you can't pay for those - if you let rich people keep tonnes more extra money that they were only able to accumulate in the system we set up / perpetuate.
I disagree with your premise. Taken to the logical end here, there should be no taxes! Because if you always give tax cuts, and never increase taxes, then eventually there will be no taxes. Taxes serve a purpose, and I talked about how taxes are used by the government above. And, no, neither the invisible free market, or charities, are replacement material.
Edited by sierraleone, 22 December 2017 - 07:43 AM.