Spending or investing

Spending vs. investments. Which results in more job creation?

Are certain forms of investment poorer job creators than others? If so, should government create incentives for preferable investing? Is it already happening?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Spending vs. investments. Which results in more job creation?

Are certain forms of investment poorer job creators than others? If so, should government create incentives for preferable investing? Is it already happening?

If the consumer has no money to spend then it won't matter
who invests in any job sector area. Spending has been cut
everywhere now because money is tight and budgets have to be
balanced. But in the effort to do this many governments have created
austerity and cut back too much. Now it is the case that people have no
disposable income after they pay their bills and so the economy is flat.
There is no stimulus and so far governments have failed to put a stimulus
package in place to revive the economy.

Investment is important yes but it must be done wisely.
All the investment in the world won't matter if it is invested in the wrong
place and doesn't create the right jobs to give people a decent wage and
disposable income thereafter.

Disposable income is what is most important.
If people have no money to spend on goods and services
then jobs are lost and you go back to square 1.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Spending vs. investments. Which results in more job creation?

Are certain forms of investment poorer job creators than others? If so, should government create incentives for preferable investing? Is it already happening?

Neither. Taxation is what creates jobs.

Originally posted by whodey
Neither. Taxation is what creates jobs.

How does taxation create jobs???

The purpose of taxation is to raise revenue for the government.

They use this to run public services like schools, hospitals, law and order and roads.
Any government department will tell you that their section is inefficient and half
the yearly budget goes on wages.

Reports say that public servants are inefficient and overpaid.
Governments cannot create jobs alone.

It is capitalism that creates jobs. That's right. Greedy hateful capitalism.

Capitalism creates the jobs and the wages that people receive goes to paying
for utilities and then the disposable income goes back into the economy
buying more goods and services thus fueling the economy and profit
and so creating more jobs.

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
How does taxation create jobs???

The purpose of taxation is to raise revenue for the government.

They use this to run public services like schools, hospitals, law and order and roads.
Any government department will tell you that their section is inefficient and half
the yearly budget goes on wages.

Reports say that public servants are inef ...[text shortened]...
buying more goods and services thus fueling the economy and profit
and so creating more jobs.

You are behind the times. Taxation is the New Growth.

The higher the taxation rate, the greater the prosperity. Or at least that's what our Keynesian socialist friends would like us to believe.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Spending vs. investments. Which results in more job creation?

Are certain forms of investment poorer job creators than others? If so, should government create incentives for preferable investing? Is it already happening?

It depends, yes of course, yes of course, yes of course.

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
How does taxation create jobs???

The purpose of taxation is to raise revenue for the government.

They use this to run public services like schools, hospitals, law and order and roads.
Any government department will tell you that their section is inefficient and half
the yearly budget goes on wages.

Reports say that public servants are inef ...[text shortened]...
buying more goods and services thus fueling the economy and profit
and so creating more jobs.

I believe Whodey is being sarcastic. I think he is putting a jab to the left wingers who like big government.

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
If the consumer has no money to spend then it won't matter
who invests in any job sector area. Spending has been cut
everywhere now because money is tight and budgets have to be
balanced. But in the effort to do this many governments have created
austerity and cut back too much. Now it is the case that people have no
disposable income afte ...[text shortened]... have no money to spend on goods and services
then jobs are lost and you go back to square 1.

If the typical consumer has little money where did it go?
There is plenty of wealth, just in fewer hands, right?

Corporations are still making profit, or at least it is being reflected in the price of stock shares. Maybe the big money people just prefer to lend their money out to nations that will never be able to pay it back. That would explain why debt is the new normal. If a nation can barely pay the interest on debt it amounts to economic slavery.

Debt/Economic slavery by design?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It depends, yes of course, yes of course, yes of course.

Of course what? Please be specific and include examples.

Originally posted by spruce112358
You are behind the times. Taxation is the New Growth.

The higher the taxation rate, the greater the prosperity. Or at least that's what our Keynesian socialist friends would like us to believe.

You go right ahead and raise tax to the roof and see how far it gets you.


High tax means no investment and so therefore no jobs and no growth.

So you're back to square 1. No growth, no jobs, no spending power, flat economy,
recession and depression.

Low tax encourages investment, creates jobs, stimulates growth,
increases disposable income, revives the economy and everyone is happy.

It's a no brainer.

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
You go right ahead and raise tax to the roof and see how far it gets you.


High tax means no investment and so therefore no jobs and no growth.

So you're back to square 1. No growth, no jobs, no spending power, flat economy,
recession and depression.

Low tax encourages investment, creates jobs, stimulates growth,
increases disposable income, revives the economy and everyone is happy.

It's a no brainer.

I think he is being sarcastic too.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I think he is being sarcastic too.

Well that's my economics lecture of the day to you numbnuts.

Read chapters 8 through 12.


Exam on Thursday.......................................................

those who fail can say hello to welfare for the rest of their miserable lives.

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
You go right ahead and raise tax to the roof and see how far it gets you.


High tax means no investment and so therefore no jobs and no growth.

So you're back to square 1. No growth, no jobs, no spending power, flat economy,
recession and depression.

Low tax encourages investment, creates jobs, stimulates growth,
increases disposable income, revives the economy and everyone is happy.

It's a no brainer.

There isn't a problem with high tax per say, but there is if the rate of tax is so high - relative to similar states - that a capital flight ensues with investment leaving the country so that it's earnings won't be taxed so much. A 50% top rate tax in the U.K. is high by recent historical standards - but because the French top rate is so high I think that French millionaires looking for a tax exile would consider the U.K. even if the Tories had left the top rate at 50% and not lowered it to 45%.

During a boom it might make sense to put on a high rate of tax to stop the economy overheating - although the mechanism for this is normally interest rates.

Putting money into gold helps no-one but the part of the financial industry which provides futures to the mining industry and people who already have large gold deposits. The basic problem everyone is suffering from is Q.E. not high taxes. By pumping new central bank money into the hands of investors they managed to cause assets to be too highly priced relative to their earnings. This means new investors face the same basic risks for much lower rewards. So they put their money into gold or proven companies which go off into this bubble. This makes it more expensive for new money to enter the market so it doesn't.

The mad part of it is that having created this money they insist on paying back the debt the central banks bought back anyway - once a bit of debt is repaid the money is destroyed - probably worrying about moral hazards for governments. This is how it works in the U.K. - I assume it's done basically the same way elsewhere. Since the multiplier effect should already have happened canceling the part of the debt the state owns itself shouldn't be inflationary (or count as a default since they already own them). We have austerity budgets so that our governments can repay debts they owe to themselves.

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody


Read chapters 8 through 12.

I might read chapters 8 through 12 if you tell me what book it is from. Do tell.

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
You go right ahead and raise tax to the roof and see how far it gets you.


High tax means no investment and so therefore no jobs and no growth.

So you're back to square 1. No growth, no jobs, no spending power, flat economy,
recession and depression.

Low tax encourages investment, creates jobs, stimulates growth,
increases disposable income, revives the economy and everyone is happy.

It's a no brainer.

Don't be silly. The government invests far more sensibly than any corporation or individual ever could.

Corporations and individuals are prone to snoozing on huge piles of gold and gems like so many dragons. It takes fearless government workers armed with 'taxing' swords to slay them and recycle their cash to better use.