Conversation with a rich uncle

[RonPaulIsGreat]

The rich uncle isn't very bright.

Doing Good, or Helping doesn't have to go through the government. He could set up a scholarship fund for his employees, give them a bonus. He could even invest it in some technology company researching some important work.

Taxation, government redistribution, etc... add up the sum total of that benefit, and compare it to the benefits brought about by research, new technology, medicines, etc... IT's easily 10000 times better to give/invest money to try to solve a problem instead of bandaging a problem via government.

You know if the government wasn't taking as much in taxes from me, I'd still put it to use, some would be invested, some would be spent right now, etc.... we'd be creating a lot more constructive solutions (increased investment), instead of patchwork solutions and destructive ones (Wars, threat of wars).


Anyway, if anything the size and scope of our government, IMO, is slowing the rate of progress to things like a "cure for cancer', 'better alternative energies', et... Why simply because like in my case, I have to buy and invest at a slower rate than I wiould if the tax rate was lower, like I'd probably have bought the 6000 dollar inverter/charger/ I've been eyeing, and I probably have redone the outside of this house by now, which would mean more constructive jobs, meaning more people that want to work would be working.

As far as the lazy that refuse to work, I've no problem letting them die. Really, Essentially a person like that is putting a gun to their own head and saying 'give me your money or I'll pull the trigger', essentially forcing you to work for them. Screw that.

 

[LibForestPaul]

Sounds like they should have asked for a raise.

The thing is, we have a federal government that wants to eventually "take care" of everyone, not just the people who are worse off or don't have as much ambition. I would personally settle for a limited federal government, and let the states do the social caretaking. Of course, the states wouldn't be able to do much since they wouldn't have a money printing press.

They want to decide who to take care of. (Gay marriage, not mormon marriage.)
Thye want to decide who gets taken care of more, and who get taken care of less. (Federal pensions for federal workers.)
They wnat to decide when someone should not be taken care of (death panels)
They want to decide when someone should be punished when they have done something which they could not control (bloomberg soda ban, tax for bad health behavior)

 

[archangel689]

He said when he opened his first grocery store, even though the store brought in a lot of money, there was no incentive to hire new employees. He said while his pockets kept getting fuller, his 8 or so employees made about $8.00, and he had no reason to hire anyone else because they did a fine job of keeping the store going.

"*Successful* entrepreneurs aren't the concern. They have already made money and already created jobs. In economic terms, they are kind of a sunk cost. What matters are the entrepreneur wanna-bes. These are the people who will create new jobs. They aren't yet rich, so they don't show up among the "rich entrepreneurs" who say that taxes don't matter. They also haven't yet taken on the risk that leads to job creation. In deciding whether or not to take on entrepreneurial risk, they will balance the risk against the expected after-tax return. The higher the tax rate, the less likely they will be to take on risk and so the less likely they will be to create jobs.

In short, when it comes to creating jobs the "don't tax the rich" argument is less about the effect on the existing rich and much more about the effect on the might-be-in-the-future rich." --Antony Davies