you want unpleasant labor to pay more, than we need less people wanting those jobs (which usually…
tetas jones

It isn’t that I want any job to pay more beyond the balance between available labor and the value of the task. It might be hard to get your head around, but I do believe in the law of supply and demand. I just don’t believe that it should be elevated to a capital offense to not be in demand. We already provide, albeit insufficiently, a minimum income, but we accomplish it with a myriad of inefficient and redundant programs that we finance with taxation. A basic income would actually shrink government, not expand it. The law of supply and demand would also greatly reduce wages as a cost of doing business.

If one had their basic needs provided their concept of acceptable wages would be altered drastically with a starting point of zero for jobs that people would do simply for self fulfilment, and elevating for jobs that offer little such personal fulfilment and are unpleasant/demanding. Also, don’t forget that automation is becoming a factor that can’t be ignored, with impacts already being felt in the market and causing greater reliance on the safety nets. Shifting costs between categories doesn’t make them go away when one expands their view to include all of society.

Wealth accumulation, except for shareholder equity, does sequester capital, and interest paid on that capital is as inflationary as is the money supply. Risk avoidance is a major factor in investment planning and taxing profits from low risk investment equally to those from higher risk, but more productive, investments is a major factor in job creation via investment that makes moot all supply side economic theories. The high top marginal tax rates during the fifties and sixties, with exemptions for productive investment, did much more to direct capital flow than to actually collect taxes. Investors overcame much of their risk aversion when the alternative was seventy five percent taxation.

The investor class actually paid no more, as a percentage of federal government income, then than they do now. What was different was the velocity of that capital invested through the Main St economy. The middle class always pays the lion’s share of taxation and the goal of government should be to manage the economy in such a way that gives it sufficient income to do so. If our politicians don’t have the will to do so with tax policy then it must be done via the money supply and government spending, which does expand and empower big government. Cutting taxation AND spending (money supply) is the stupidest thing government could possibly do for the economy, but that appears to be the direction we’ve decided to take since we embarked on this current fantasy of fiscal conservatism that is failing all around us on a global scale.

Like what you read? Give Keith Evans a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.