{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
2/28/2013 12:48:40 PM
4
Unemployment.
The more people working means the more revenue the Government can tax. At a certain point, the amount of tax needed to operate the government stops being a percentage and starts being a real number. So, if enough people are working, that real number starts to be a lower percentage of everyone's check.
So, at the end of the day, is you want lower taxes, you need more people paying them.
Look at it like this, if there you are at a restaurant, and have a $100 bill, the more people chipping in to pay it means that you personally pay less.
The economic boon under Clinton made the Bush era tax cuts a possibility.
English
-
what if the policy which helped unemployment would damage GDP?
-
Typically things don't work that way. The policy would have to be pretty backwards to force businesses to hire when they don't have the demand to use the workers. That said, there could be policies that emphasize local hiring (as opposed to off-shoring) and manual labor (as opposed to mechanization) to emphasize employment when demand does pick up.
-
For the sake of argument, let's say that it's just me with a magic wand. I can reduce unemployment, but GDP will suffer. Or I could increase GDP, but unemployment will go up as well. Which would you prefer?
-
Unemployment to be improved. GDP only helps the few. At the end of the day, any political or economic system is there to benefit the most number of people. What is the point of sacrificing people for the system?
