To interact with this page you must login.
Signup
society
understand
That graph is a variation on the Laffer Curve.
The role of a government is to meet our needs, and curb the corporations so they cannot do whatever they want. One way they can do this, is by having a public service which competes with the private sector. This is why it cost me £3.20 to post a book from the UK to Canada, instead of the £20 that DHL were charging. Because public services are not deprived in the credit crunch, they can put people's needs above profits, in the same way that the BBC can still afford to put Songs of Praise on the tv, even though nobody watches it.
To clarify what that means, to a government, corporations and large businesses are a threat. If they want to implement a law, they can easily say no to it, as they are of power. The way to get corporations to follow the laws that the government sets, is to have or increase competition within the various sectors.
For instance, it's easier for Ofcom to regulate expensive roaming charges on mobile phones, if there is competition within telecommunications. If there are just 2 companies competing, and none of them are nationalised, there is little Ofcom can do, to make that regulation happen. If the government wants to raise taxes for the rich, corporations will threaten to move their business abroad, if there is no competition within that sector.
Here's a question I have to ask you.
Let's imagine that there is a public sector health service where you live, and you're thinking of ways to further improve health in your country. The healthcare you receive is free.
How about if the government, instead of having a national health service, gave you vouchers whenever you were sick, that you could redeem for your healthcare.
Would you say yes or no?. I know which one I would choose.
Do tax increases destroy jobs?
Speaker of the House John Boehner said on 9/15/11:
Source: http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/15/news/economy/boehner_speech/index.htm?hpt=hp_t1
What evidence is there that increasing tax rates results in a decrease in the number of jobs in a developed economy? What evidence does Speaker Boehner use to support his assertion?
Related question: Do income tax increases on the top 2% of earners prevent job creation?
"Tax increases, I think, are off the table. It's a very simple equation. Tax increases destroy jobs. And the Joint Committee is a jobs committee. Its mission is to reduce the deficit that is threatening job creation in our country."
Source: http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/15/news/economy/boehner_speech/index.htm?hpt=hp_t1
What evidence is there that increasing tax rates results in a decrease in the number of jobs in a developed economy? What evidence does Speaker Boehner use to support his assertion?
Related question: Do income tax increases on the top 2% of earners prevent job creation?
societyunderstand
tynamite
Erik
Why does a prosperous economy need "public services"?That graph is a variation on the Laffer Curve.
tynamite
Me
Because without public services a lot of the things that we are guaranteed from the day we're born, would not exist, such as education, emergency services, and the arts.Meeting our interests
If there were no public services, our interests wouldn't be met so much (education, the arts, housing, access to food). A supermarket could be on a road that has potholes, and there would be no obligation for that corporation to fix it. Councils do fix it because they're a part of the public sector. Also, there would be a lot more road accidents on the road as the driving test is a public service too. Car companies would make up their own driving test, and cause the car crunch by giving out licenses to poor drivers.The role of a government is to meet our needs, and curb the corporations so they cannot do whatever they want. One way they can do this, is by having a public service which competes with the private sector. This is why it cost me £3.20 to post a book from the UK to Canada, instead of the £20 that DHL were charging. Because public services are not deprived in the credit crunch, they can put people's needs above profits, in the same way that the BBC can still afford to put Songs of Praise on the tv, even though nobody watches it.
Curbing corporations
Another way that a government can curb corporations, is by introducing legislation. But there is a problem. Governments in Western societies cannot just make up new laws as they please, because there is competition between the corporations of which their laws will affect.To clarify what that means, to a government, corporations and large businesses are a threat. If they want to implement a law, they can easily say no to it, as they are of power. The way to get corporations to follow the laws that the government sets, is to have or increase competition within the various sectors.
For instance, it's easier for Ofcom to regulate expensive roaming charges on mobile phones, if there is competition within telecommunications. If there are just 2 companies competing, and none of them are nationalised, there is little Ofcom can do, to make that regulation happen. If the government wants to raise taxes for the rich, corporations will threaten to move their business abroad, if there is no competition within that sector.
Conclusion
So now it's been established that for governments to be able to curb corporations, there has to be competition within the industries that they reside in. They can do this by increasing competition then adding legislation, or by having a public sector company and then the private companies follow the standard (of service and price). This is why British tv is better than American tv, because the BBC encourages commercial broadcasters to take risks financially when commissioning original tv shows.Here's a question I have to ask you.
Let's imagine that there is a public sector health service where you live, and you're thinking of ways to further improve health in your country. The healthcare you receive is free.
How about if the government, instead of having a national health service, gave you vouchers whenever you were sick, that you could redeem for your healthcare.
Would you say yes or no?. I know which one I would choose.
With too many taxes, there is little money for people to earn, and people are deprived of public services, jobs and other things. A good example of this is Egypt because they're taxing their citizens way out of their debt instead of accepting thr NSA European bailout. Now their citizens are suffering and protesting.
I believe the graph would look something like this.