mkm wrote: ↑Fri May 11, 2018 6:03 amTax evasion is not that hard and it's not waging war against USA
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they don't use military to chase tax evaders(?).
Which is why the degree of tax evasion should alter the degree of consequence. More tax evasion, more military.
mkm wrote:It's connected anyway. And if you put higher tax on these things, "the rich" will pay more for them, more money goes to budget, but less money "the rich" will allocate in investments,
Investments back into the useless things they are producing. Do you think that a successful video games drives studios to invest in a new video game or better industrial technology?
mkm wrote:which are more productive, than government spendings.
Citation?
mkm wrote:It's not true for the same reaasons that "obstacles for doing business don't matter, good business will handle them". No, there are thresholds for all inventions before they can become common, as there are thresholds of efficiency in business.
Great ideas will trump them though. The degree of taxation on the rich in the United States has not saw a lack of new products.
mkm wrote:I don't think that even government officials have crystal balls or know better what will be succesful, and what not, than actual investors.
Which is why you embed it in the law to be a scheduled activity and have academic experts take care of the decision making.
mkm wrote:And this all provided that official really want to be reasonable. Spending money you don't own, on things that won't be for you, is the most careless way of spending the money.
While having your own assets at risks provides motivation to spend efficiently, it does not necessarily provide wisdom, not that politicians are wise
. Still, there are wise neutral parties that can assess these things.
mkm wrote:They had to be rich enough to not to collapse immediately after introducing social benefits. I don't say it's impossible, I don't think it's better, whatever better means.
Do you think Red is running for president of Somalia? What makes you think that the United States is not wealthy enough to uphold a welfare state (or some aspects of it).
mkm wrote:By those who care at least
You think it is useful to have uninterested parties manage resources, or am I misunderstanding? Like what I proposed with evaluating useless goods?
mkm wrote:The laws of the economy don't changed though.
Except huge economic crashes have demonstrated that government intervention can bring economies back to their feet.
mkm wrote:I admit, that the productivity thanks to technological development is unprecedented, so economies can handle more.
Agreed.
mkm wrote:What amount of people has to do with anything?
I should have been more clear: the GDP per capita in the USA, for example, has grown faster than the population, meaning there are more excess wealth now than there was before.
Justification:
US Population 1900: 76,212,168 people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_United_States_Census
US Population 2017: 324,459,463 people http://www.worldometers.info/world-popu ... opulation/
Growth: About 4.25 times larger
US GDP per capita 1900: $4,096.00 http://www.nationmaster.com/country-inf ... ta-in-1900
US GDP per capita 2017: $59,495.34 https://www.statista.com/statistics/270 ... er-capita/
Growth: About 14.5 times larger
Edit: I am going to use a smaller interval when I get home, because I realize that I don’t know what the inflation is on the 1900 GDP Per Capita. The result is less dramatic, but still there, which makes sense. Sorry about the confusion.
US Population 2000: 281,421,906 people
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tab ... l?src=bkmk
US Population 2017: 325,719,178 people
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/ ... /PST045216
Growth: About 1.16 times larger
Fourth quarterUS real GDP 2000: $12,679.338 billion
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPC1
Fourth quarter US real GDP 2017: $17,286.497 billion
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPC1
Growth: 1.36 times larger