Tax cuts for rich do not spur job growth

Heisenberg wrote: This thread is an exercise in futility. Never will you convince a liberal that increasing a cost to businesses decreases their incentive to hire and, to invest, to expand. If goverment had the power to control business hiring and profit margins, liberals would be all for that IMO. It's just a natural reaction to blame those who hire for not hiring. And to say that tax policy does not affect business hiring decisions is like saying it doesn't matter if utilities double or if expenses can no longer be deducted from taxable income.

Straw man argument. No one is advocating increasing a cost to business, instead just the opposite. This thread is about the documented fact that providing additional tax cuts to the wealthiest .1% does not create jobs. Your post is at best a result of poor reading comprehension and at worst a false straw man argument intended to deflect from the topic.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

Heisenberg wrote: This thread is an exercise in futility. Never will you convince a liberal that increasing a cost to businesses decreases their incentive to hire and, to invest, to expand. If goverment had the power to control business hiring and profit margins, liberals would be all for that IMO. It's just a natural reaction to blame those who hire for not hiring. And to say that tax policy does not affect business hiring decisions is like saying it doesn't matter if utilities double or if expenses can no longer be deducted from taxable income.

Straw man argument. No one is advocating increasing a cost to business, instead just the opposite. This thread is about the documented fact that providing additional tax cuts to the wealthiest .1% does not create jobs. Your post is at best a result of poor reading comprehension and at worst a false straw man argument intended to deflect from the topic.

Ending the Bush tax cuts for "the rich" will increase employment how? And how much should that increase be... you guys never stick your neck out on that question do you?

Raees wrote: Glad to hear another business success story under Obama. Thanks for sharing HIB!

I notice you and the other lefties havn't addressed any of my points- I've showed you a real life example of how the economy works- and that it is INDEED those who have money to invest- and those who are top earners are the job creators- they are the ones who create the middle class consumers.

And guess what- Obama didn't do it. Obama didn't make my company happen- we did. We did it in spite of Obama, not because of Obama.

We are unique- because we have a business that is booming. Just because we are booming- does not exclude me from understanding that the vast majority of businesses are not doing well.

And do you know- do you know what I - a consumer - does with my money? I save, spent and invest it. I take it home to Evergreen, I go out to dinner, I tip the waitress. I go to the stores and buy products. I get my hair cut at my local hair cutter- I buy gas and tobacco from the local gas station- I buy products and services from local businesses.

Sometimes I splurge a little, and buy electronic gadgets, chain saws and tools I could probably do without- like many people are doing without these days. I am able to support local business because I am lucky to have a decent job - a job that a guy making 500+K a year has created.

He took the risks- because he saw a profit could be made, and because the government hasn't yet stolen his resources to grow the business.

The money does trickle down- and it keeps trickling down until the government shuts off the valve, and kills the golden goose. For many businesses, the golden goose is already dead with taxes, restrictions and regulations.

Somewhere in Evergreen, there's a resturant that got more business, a waitress who got more tips, and a business who made more profit because I'm a "consumer". There's a local government who got more property taxes, a school district who got funding, a mortgage company who recieved another months payment. There's a local propane company who sold more fuel, there's a septic company who pumped out one more septic tank- and a hardware store who sold more products and dozens of other businesses- local that I use because I can afford to use their services.

What this economy needs is not fewer people like me- who work for a 1%'r. What we need is millions more people like me who have the same opportunity as I have.

You can ignore my own experience, but it's a real life example of what I'm talking about- it's real.

And you completely ignore the fact that if there was no demand for your products, if the consumers were unable to afford to purchase your companies products, you would not have a job.

The consumer creates the demand, which in turn encourages investment to supply the market. If there is no demand, there is no market. If the consumer can not afford the product, there is no market. Your "real life" experience fails to address this. You simply ignore the fact that you need the consumer in order to stay in business. Your "real life" experience does not even mention how tax cuts to the wealthiest .1% created your job.


So you are now trying to deflect away from the topic at hand, that it is a proven fact that providing tax cuts for the wealthiest .1% does not create jobs.

Heisenberg wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

Heisenberg wrote: This thread is an exercise in futility. Never will you convince a liberal that increasing a cost to businesses decreases their incentive to hire and, to invest, to expand. If goverment had the power to control business hiring and profit margins, liberals would be all for that IMO. It's just a natural reaction to blame those who hire for not hiring. And to say that tax policy does not affect business hiring decisions is like saying it doesn't matter if utilities double or if expenses can no longer be deducted from taxable income.

Straw man argument. No one is advocating increasing a cost to business, instead just the opposite. This thread is about the documented fact that providing additional tax cuts to the wealthiest .1% does not create jobs. Your post is at best a result of poor reading comprehension and at worst a false straw man argument intended to deflect from the topic.

Ending the Bush tax cuts for "the rich" will increase employment how? And how much should that increase be... you guys never stick your neck out on that question do you?

It will bring down the deficit, which according to "you guys" is a critical issue, it will enable tax breaks for small business hiring to be enacted without increasing the deficit, it will help with providing job retraining education, etc., etc.

Are you just trolling or do you have anything substantial to add?

BearMtnHIB wrote: My company created 200 "consumers"- we all have good jobs that allow us to be consumers- and Obama and liberals are trying to destroy us, because they do not unerstand how this economy works.

Actually, we DO "unerstand"... Your company is supported by 200 consumers, without which, you would not have a business... Did you go out and market to them? I'm sure you did. What if those 200 consumers that would have liked to buy your product didn't have the money to do so? You would be flipping burgers--which, given your nature of insulting service-workers, would be the most appropriate outcome.

Something the Dog Said wrote: What creates an economy is demand which is driven by the consumers who are primarily the middle and lower income classes. It is a farce to think that the only "risk takers" are the wealthiest .1%. It is the small business owners who risk their savings and retirement who are the risk takers to create jobs. It is a farce to think that it was Henry Ford who created the modern economy. It was the consumers for the Model T which created the demand, and he was able to answer it by providing an affordable vehicle to the lower and middle classes.

Currently, corporations are sitting on record amounts of cash and record profits who are refusing to create jobs because there is insufficient demand in the economy. Giving even more tax cuts to the wealthiest .1% has been proven to be useless in creating jobs, while giving tax cuts into the hands of the lower and middle class, the 90% of America, has been shown over and over to spur the economy, creating demand for goods and services, providing incentive to create even more jobs, while giving it to the wealthiest 1% destroys the economy.

Keynesian nonsense. The supply of the Model T is what created the demand for it and others like it. Henry Ford didn't create the automobile or the assembly line process, both existed before he did, but he was the first one to supply an automobile using the assembly line process which lowered the cost of the product to the point where more consumers could afford to purchase it. The supply of the first one created the demand for more of them. The success of the company that Ford started is what sparked investment in others of the same type. We had hundreds of car companies in the Union over the span of time from 1909, when the first Model T rolled off the assembly line, to the start of the Great Depression. I can name about 30 of them off the top of my head. Amercian Bantam Car Company, who made the first Jeep. Hudson, Jordan, Cameron, DeSoto, Packard, Duryea, Willy's Overland, Essex, Nash, Graham, Crawford, Checker, Duesenberg, Rickenbacker (yes, Eddie Rickenbacker, the ace of WWI fame), the list is nearly endless.

If Keynesian economics, demand side economics, consumer fueled economics (all the same rose by the way), actually worked then the oil companies wouldn't have been facing fines for failing to have the necessary levels of cellulose based biofuels in their gasoline products. The federal government demanded that they be there, but no one is manufacturing produced the product to meet the demand and we paid an additional $6.8 million (plus a profit margin on the expense) for our fuels to cover the cost of those fines. If demand side economics was a valid model then we would have affordable solar panels being produced by American companies.

Supply creates demand, not the other way around. The supply of the personal computer is what led to the demand for them. The supply of an affordable electronic scientific calculator spurred the demand for them. Up until one was supplied, everyone used a slide rule and got along well enough to put a man on the moon. No one demanded a TV until there was one was supplied for them to purchase, same for the radio, same for the electric light bulb. There was no such thing as a natural gas furnace for the home until someone started supplying natural gas. No propane grills until someone started supplying propane. The list of examples is nearly as endless as the list of former car companies and models is when you get right down to it. Supply of a product or service is what creates the demand for it in the marketplace. When the collectivists finally figure that out, perhaps we can get ourselves back on a path to prosperity in this Union of ours.

First off, I'm not advocating reducing tax rates for the wealthy. But I do have a couple of questions about that study.

First, it looks at historic tax rates (tax brackets). Tax rates do not accurately reflect what a person actually pays in taxes for a number of reasons. First off it doesn't reflect the deductions, credits, or "loopholes" a person may get. Second, if a 90% top bracket didn't begin until say $1,000,000, it's not accurate to compare it to another year where the top bracket may of been 50% but applied to all money over $250K.

It seems to me they should of looked at effective tax rates instead. That is what a person actually pays after all the deductions and tax brackets are taken in effect. Here are historic fed income tax rates since 1979...

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456

While the effective rates for the top 1% (top 0.1 and .01% not listed) are down a bit, they've only varied from about 19% to 24%. This is a time period when the top bracket, which the report looks at, varied from 70% to 35%. Big difference.

Also, we often talk about the top 1% or 10%, but this report looks at the top 0.1% and 0.01%. Why so selective and why look at such a small group? The group that did the report may be nonpartisian, but we know they often just look at the parameters that the person in Congress who asked for the report requests them to use. I wonder if that's what happened here? I see no reason to use tax brackets in the report when effective tax rate is much more accurate.

Something the Dog Said wrote: It will bring down the deficit, which according to "you guys" is a critical issue, it will enable tax breaks for small business hiring to be enacted without increasing the deficit, it will help with providing job retraining education, etc., etc.

Are you just trolling or do you have anything substantial to add?

Like the "deficit reduction" taxes added to every gallon of fuel sold back in the 1980's reduced the deficit that was accrued during the Reagan administration? Spending drives the deficit, not revenue. Deficits occur when spending exceeds revenues. Doesn't matter how much revenue one takes in when one spends in excess of that revenue. The deficit problem we have is a spending problem, not a revenue one.

So the answer to the economy according to Printsmith is to simply pump out products whether or not the consumers can afford them. Does that work in your business? Anytime you need additional revenue, you simply print up a bunch of documents and watch the money roll in? So if is that simple, that all that is necessary is to create supply, then why are not jobs simply being created if the easiest way to wealth is to pump out supply? Why is the economy not overflowing at present since companies are sitting on record amounts of cash?

Or could it be that companies are not spending their record amounts of cash on hand on creating jobs because the demand for their products is not there due to the lack of activity of consumer spending? Hmm, which makes more sense?

You supply siders are funny in your contortions.