Since the rich currently are paying the lower taxes and have tax cuts, then how come there are no jobs now? More money doesn't create jobs unless a company or individual uses it to create jobs. The rich use job creation as a carrot to dangle over the poor jackasses so they support them to get richer. If a company really needs people they will hire. And the business they need them for will support their pay. The rest is for greedy corporate bastards.
For those who want facts and not politics-- yes, higher rates on the rich generally create more jobs.
Assume Joe millionaire makes $2million a year, and look at the extremes. If Joe is going to be taxed at 10% on his 2nd million, every $50k employee he lays off makes him another $45k. If he is going to be taxed 90% on his second million, every $50k new hire/bizinvest costs him $5k. He is incentivized to hire/bizinvst (to get business utility from the $50k rather than pay it in as taxes).
There are two sectors in our country, the public and the private. Taking money out of the private sector and expecting growth in that sector is simply delusional.
Of course raising taxes on the wealthy creates jobs, that is basic business economics, the diff between pre-tax & after-tax incentivization. Cutting taxes for the wealthy suppresses wages & generally costs jobs.
Assume Joe millionaire makes $2million a year, and look at the extremes. If Joe is going to be taxed at 10% on his 2nd million, every $50k employee he lays off makes him another $45k. If he is going to be taxed 90% on his second million, every $50k new hire/bizinvest costs him $5k.
Attempted ad hominems are all you've got eh? Of course, because the basic fact that tax raises on the wealthy generally create jobs and more investment is not really debateable, but doesn't go along with the nigh 30 years of rightwing "trick(le) down" canards. Those who understand pre-tax vs. after-tax incentivization understand this, and see that basic economics and historical data back it up.
PS-- 2 college degrees, Summa, Gold Key. Yourself?
@Diskatopia But ad hominems work so well when you only have a limited number of characters with which to work with. Alas, I didn't need to go to school twice to graduate with a double major and a minor... But most, like yourself, are less fortunate in the area of cerebral ability as I. I'll be applying to law schools in the Fall of 2013, after a year in Japan to study and do research on a government scholarship. But back to YOU!
@AwesomeDudeGreat <-- (sic) Great for you, I turned down my full scholarship to a top law school, but it might be good for you, to teach you not to make assumptions on the basis of limited knowledge. You can imagine you are more intelligent (again, an assumption with no basis) if it makes you feel better, but that won't change basic economic facts: raising the taxes of the wealthy generally creates an increase in production investment and job creation, as a beneficial way to avoid the tax loss.
@Diskatopia <-- (csi) I'm going to hire enough people so I can reduce my tax rate to zero! Lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
Aside from saturation in my intended market, another reason I intend to undertake my business ventures outside this country is due to the peculiar lack of appreciation and respect shown to the economic foundations of the once great United States of America that you short-sighted, class envyists cement yourself to.
@AwesomeDudeGreat Straw man and ad hominem are all you have because of your lack of understanding of basic business economics I see, you spew the usual jibberjabber of those who don't understand something but who cling to their ignorance due to the facts not fitting their politics. It is a basic of business economics that raising taxes on the wealthy incentivizes business investment and job creation, so whether you believe it or understand why it is so makes no difference in the real world.
@AwesomeDudeGreat At this point you should realize you have penned yourself in-- your argument at this point is that tax rates do not have ANY effect on job creation. If you do not realize that you have pennned yourself in (which is likely considering you still throw out ad hominem), notice that the two statements you wrote do not rely on any specific taxation level. You have missed the point, which is that higher tax rates on the wealthy leads to more bus. invest. and job creation.
@AwesomeDudeGreat And before you spew something about "higher taxes take the money needed to hire blah blah" --that is false, the money that higher taxes incentivize is from profits, which is generally not used to hire/invest in the business (otherwise it would not be in the "profits" column). Basic business econ, the difference between pre-tax (strong) and after-tax(weak) incentivization of tax rates on job creation and business invst. ...you can close your mind all you want, facts are facts.
@Diskatopia Lol "...money that higher taxes incentivize is from profits, which is generally not used to hire/invest in the business..." Well duh. Because it's going towards taxes, it can't go towards hiring or investing, silly fool.
Your simplified after-tax incentivization model works, but only if the point of business is to hire employees. Hint... It's not.
@AwesomeDudeGreat No, you still don't get it-- hiring is done with PRE-TAX dollars... it is used and DEDUCTED from any business inc. BEFORE taxes. Think it through, you will get it. Taxes either have an effect on hiring or they do not. You have penned yourself in that they do not. If they do, then higher taxes generally will increase pre-tax deductible bus. inv. (utility of the money rather than paying it as tax) and thus jobs creation, lower taxes (as now) generally lead to cashing out.
@Diskatopia kjwlfjasdfkla jdifaejwvpoiweaporv You idiot. You moron. Your model does not work because businesses do not exist to hire workers. I don't know how else to dumb this down for you.
@AwesomeDudeGreat Then-- stop and think a moment before you start spouting ad hominem again-- once again, as I stated before, you have penned yourself in to the position that taxes do not have an effect on hiring. They either do or do not, your position is hiring is only by need, thus in your position higher taxes make no difference either way-- again, remember, hiring is done with PRE-TAX MONIES, not profit, so amount of tax cannot effect hiring under your position, only need to hire can.
Also, most jobs come from small businesses. Not corporate giants. It's the small, humble businesses that keep the economy thriving. Not the arrogant elitist companies who fire people like dogs. Also, with a college degree maybe people can be self reliant and create their own businesses or write a book or start a website and become your own boss. People don't need these arrogant rich jerks who want you to work longer hours and make it less and less likely for you to retire when you're ready!
Poor people don't pay a lot of taxes, so lowering taxes won't help the poor. It helps the rich. So the rich gets richer & poor poorer. Look at us now. Our foundation fell!
Raising taxes will help in getting support to those 41 million people on food stamps last year, 61 million now? Do you thing they can afford insurance? No!
They will pull down the insurance corps to nothing. Our schools are going to close.
We are planning to spend 1% on food in 2011 on out budget. We need high taxes! Our foundation is on the poor. They collapsed & here we are.
We raised taxes that helped to get out of the great depression!
@walmartramen You're deluded. Taking more money from people making them poorer won't help anyone. You're just creating more poor which is really what socialist want anyway.
People in main street just can't fathom the sort of pay rich people get and will never believe they earn their money so why bother arguing about it. Maybe people in the Sudan will complain that people in this country that work at Burger King make too much money.
I think the more appropriate answer to his question is not whether it will or won't. I think the question is whether it has potential to create jobs.
Looking at the bankers that received record profits a year after the bailout makes me think that this solution has more potential than trickle down economics. Many businesses still can't get loans from the banks to re-open.
Taking away money from the people that create jobs isn't an incentive to create more jobs. If you think this way then you are brain dead. Maybe we should just take away YOUR money and see how that works.
I never said it was the end all be all. I said that it has the chance to create jobs.
Look at Wall Street. What did they do with all that bailout money? Look at the severance packages they received. Remember the weekend getaway they had right after they received the money? They could bring their pet and put it in a special pet room for $400 a night.
They could have used that money to create jobs and provide companies with loans, but they squandered it.
@GODhelpUSofA The government could take that money and create or expand new industries....If the government creates jobs, those employees are now considered "government employees"...you know who pays their wages? Tax payers! It is an endless cycle!
@GODhelpUSofA Who are you to decide that someone doesn't need the money they make? I personally don't think you need Internet access, so take your $35 a month and give that to people without jobs, moron.
Since the rich currently are paying the lower taxes and have tax cuts, then how come there are no jobs now? More money doesn't create jobs unless a company or individual uses it to create jobs. The rich use job creation as a carrot to dangle over the poor jackasses so they support them to get richer. If a company really needs people they will hire. And the business they need them for will support their pay. The rest is for greedy corporate bastards.
jdbohdan 5 months ago
For those who want facts and not politics-- yes, higher rates on the rich generally create more jobs.
Assume Joe millionaire makes $2million a year, and look at the extremes. If Joe is going to be taxed at 10% on his 2nd million, every $50k employee he lays off makes him another $45k. If he is going to be taxed 90% on his second million, every $50k new hire/bizinvest costs him $5k. He is incentivized to hire/bizinvst (to get business utility from the $50k rather than pay it in as taxes).
Diskatopia 7 months ago
There are two sectors in our country, the public and the private. Taking money out of the private sector and expecting growth in that sector is simply delusional.
dinkydkmg 7 months ago
Of course raising taxes on the wealthy creates jobs, that is basic business economics, the diff between pre-tax & after-tax incentivization. Cutting taxes for the wealthy suppresses wages & generally costs jobs.
Assume Joe millionaire makes $2million a year, and look at the extremes. If Joe is going to be taxed at 10% on his 2nd million, every $50k employee he lays off makes him another $45k. If he is going to be taxed 90% on his second million, every $50k new hire/bizinvest costs him $5k.
Diskatopia 9 months ago 4
@Diskatopia Lol, did you graduate high school? 'Cause it sounds like you haven't.
AwesomeDudeGreat 7 months ago
@AwesomeDudeGreat <---(sic)
Attempted ad hominems are all you've got eh? Of course, because the basic fact that tax raises on the wealthy generally create jobs and more investment is not really debateable, but doesn't go along with the nigh 30 years of rightwing "trick(le) down" canards. Those who understand pre-tax vs. after-tax incentivization understand this, and see that basic economics and historical data back it up.
PS-- 2 college degrees, Summa, Gold Key. Yourself?
Diskatopia 7 months ago
Comment removed
AwesomeDudeGreat 7 months ago
@Diskatopia But ad hominems work so well when you only have a limited number of characters with which to work with. Alas, I didn't need to go to school twice to graduate with a double major and a minor... But most, like yourself, are less fortunate in the area of cerebral ability as I. I'll be applying to law schools in the Fall of 2013, after a year in Japan to study and do research on a government scholarship. But back to YOU!
AwesomeDudeGreat 7 months ago
@AwesomeDudeGreat <-- (sic) Great for you, I turned down my full scholarship to a top law school, but it might be good for you, to teach you not to make assumptions on the basis of limited knowledge. You can imagine you are more intelligent (again, an assumption with no basis) if it makes you feel better, but that won't change basic economic facts: raising the taxes of the wealthy generally creates an increase in production investment and job creation, as a beneficial way to avoid the tax loss.
Diskatopia 7 months ago
@Diskatopia <-- (csi) I'm going to hire enough people so I can reduce my tax rate to zero! Lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
Aside from saturation in my intended market, another reason I intend to undertake my business ventures outside this country is due to the peculiar lack of appreciation and respect shown to the economic foundations of the once great United States of America that you short-sighted, class envyists cement yourself to.
AwesomeDudeGreat 7 months ago
@AwesomeDudeGreat Straw man and ad hominem are all you have because of your lack of understanding of basic business economics I see, you spew the usual jibberjabber of those who don't understand something but who cling to their ignorance due to the facts not fitting their politics. It is a basic of business economics that raising taxes on the wealthy incentivizes business investment and job creation, so whether you believe it or understand why it is so makes no difference in the real world.
Diskatopia 7 months ago
@Diskatopia No mam, it is you who does understand the basic laws of business economics.
If a company needs employees and can afford them, then it will hire them.
If a company needs employees and cannot afford them, then it cannot hire them.
Those are the basic laws of employment and job creation. With your degrees in Stupidity and Sociology, you will never be able to comprehend that.
AwesomeDudeGreat 7 months ago
@AwesomeDudeGreat At this point you should realize you have penned yourself in-- your argument at this point is that tax rates do not have ANY effect on job creation. If you do not realize that you have pennned yourself in (which is likely considering you still throw out ad hominem), notice that the two statements you wrote do not rely on any specific taxation level. You have missed the point, which is that higher tax rates on the wealthy leads to more bus. invest. and job creation.
Diskatopia 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Diskatopia No, I'm just supremely annoyed that you are so ignorant.
If a company needs employees and can afford them, then it will hire them.
If a company needs employees and cannot afford them, then it cannot hire them.
You "have two degrees"; I shouldn't have to sit here and spell out for you that tax rates factor into a company's rate of return. hurr durr
AwesomeDudeGreat 2 months ago
@AwesomeDudeGreat And before you spew something about "higher taxes take the money needed to hire blah blah" --that is false, the money that higher taxes incentivize is from profits, which is generally not used to hire/invest in the business (otherwise it would not be in the "profits" column). Basic business econ, the difference between pre-tax (strong) and after-tax(weak) incentivization of tax rates on job creation and business invst. ...you can close your mind all you want, facts are facts.
Diskatopia 7 months ago
@Diskatopia Lol "...money that higher taxes incentivize is from profits, which is generally not used to hire/invest in the business..." Well duh. Because it's going towards taxes, it can't go towards hiring or investing, silly fool.
Your simplified after-tax incentivization model works, but only if the point of business is to hire employees. Hint... It's not.
AwesomeDudeGreat 2 months ago
@AwesomeDudeGreat No, you still don't get it-- hiring is done with PRE-TAX dollars... it is used and DEDUCTED from any business inc. BEFORE taxes. Think it through, you will get it. Taxes either have an effect on hiring or they do not. You have penned yourself in that they do not. If they do, then higher taxes generally will increase pre-tax deductible bus. inv. (utility of the money rather than paying it as tax) and thus jobs creation, lower taxes (as now) generally lead to cashing out.
Diskatopia 2 months ago
@Diskatopia kjwlfjasdfkla jdifaejwvpoiweaporv You idiot. You moron. Your model does not work because businesses do not exist to hire workers. I don't know how else to dumb this down for you.
AwesomeDudeGreat 2 months ago
@AwesomeDudeGreat Then-- stop and think a moment before you start spouting ad hominem again-- once again, as I stated before, you have penned yourself in to the position that taxes do not have an effect on hiring. They either do or do not, your position is hiring is only by need, thus in your position higher taxes make no difference either way-- again, remember, hiring is done with PRE-TAX MONIES, not profit, so amount of tax cannot effect hiring under your position, only need to hire can.
Diskatopia 2 months ago
Also, most jobs come from small businesses. Not corporate giants. It's the small, humble businesses that keep the economy thriving. Not the arrogant elitist companies who fire people like dogs. Also, with a college degree maybe people can be self reliant and create their own businesses or write a book or start a website and become your own boss. People don't need these arrogant rich jerks who want you to work longer hours and make it less and less likely for you to retire when you're ready!
GenerationX1984 1 year ago
Comment removed
GenerationX1984 1 year ago
Poor people don't pay a lot of taxes, so lowering taxes won't help the poor. It helps the rich. So the rich gets richer & poor poorer. Look at us now. Our foundation fell!
"watch?v=L9zqDZkv9eA"
walmartramen 1 year ago
Raising taxes will help in getting support to those 41 million people on food stamps last year, 61 million now? Do you thing they can afford insurance? No!
They will pull down the insurance corps to nothing. Our schools are going to close.
We are planning to spend 1% on food in 2011 on out budget. We need high taxes! Our foundation is on the poor. They collapsed & here we are.
We raised taxes that helped to get out of the great depression!
But wars cost us 58% of out budget.
walmartramen 1 year ago
@walmartramen You're deluded. Taking more money from people making them poorer won't help anyone. You're just creating more poor which is really what socialist want anyway.
bpentium 1 year ago
People in main street just can't fathom the sort of pay rich people get and will never believe they earn their money so why bother arguing about it. Maybe people in the Sudan will complain that people in this country that work at Burger King make too much money.
bpentium 2 years ago
I think it could.
If the top 1 or 2% are making 50x what their average worker is, there is a good chance that they don't need that extra money.
Thus a tax raise will not require them to lay people off, but it could require them to change their lifestyle to one of more moderation.
The government on the other hand, could take that money and create or expand new industries which could create jobs.
GODhelpUSofA 2 years ago 4
I think the more appropriate answer to his question is not whether it will or won't. I think the question is whether it has potential to create jobs.
Looking at the bankers that received record profits a year after the bailout makes me think that this solution has more potential than trickle down economics. Many businesses still can't get loans from the banks to re-open.
It is just slowing the recession down.
GODhelpUSofA 2 years ago
Taking away money from the people that create jobs isn't an incentive to create more jobs. If you think this way then you are brain dead. Maybe we should just take away YOUR money and see how that works.
bpentium 2 years ago
I never said it was the end all be all. I said that it has the chance to create jobs.
Look at Wall Street. What did they do with all that bailout money? Look at the severance packages they received. Remember the weekend getaway they had right after they received the money? They could bring their pet and put it in a special pet room for $400 a night.
They could have used that money to create jobs and provide companies with loans, but they squandered it.
Rich people do this often.
GODhelpUSofA 2 years ago
@GODhelpUSofA The government could take that money and create or expand new industries....If the government creates jobs, those employees are now considered "government employees"...you know who pays their wages? Tax payers! It is an endless cycle!
surgicalbassist 8 months ago
@surgicalbassist
Not necessarily. The Gov could lay down infrastructure to help foster implementation of a new industry.
Say SREC's and Solar Power or other renewable energy. It wouldn't be a new Government Department.
shadowpirate100 7 months ago
@GODhelpUSofA Who are you to decide that someone doesn't need the money they make? I personally don't think you need Internet access, so take your $35 a month and give that to people without jobs, moron.
AwesomeDudeGreat 7 months ago