The Myth About Job Creation

Discussion in 'Politics' started by OldRegular, Nov 14, 2012.

  1. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    There is a myth that is being propagated by talking heads with a conservative philosophy and many Republication politicians: Don't raise taxes on the rich; the rich create jobs! I believe that to be false.

    Jobs are created when a producer, rich or not, makes a product that a consumer will purchase. Producers do not produce that which will not sell. If they do they will not produce very long! It is almost a given that "the rich" will not squander their wealth. While Romney was campaigning he made a statement that I suspect very few noticed. He said that the rich will do okay regardless of the economy. That is true.

    We see then that both producer and consumer are the job creators. It is unlikely that the current Obamma economy will improve until consumers start buying.


    So just how are jobs created. They are created by those who have an idea for a product, have the gumption to try to market that product, are able to raise money to produce that product, and are able to sell that product..

    I would note that Bill Gates was not wealthy when he started Mirosoft, the two who started Apple were not wealthy, the college sudent who started Dell Computers was not wealthy, those who started Facebook were not wealthy. The list is long. The list of those who try and do not succeed is longer as is those who succeed for a time and then go bust!

    Lest any lefties get excited, don't. I am a Conservative, always was, and always will be as long as I live. The free enterprise system is the only economic system that will last. It is the only economic system that enhances rather than degrade human liberty! Furthermore I am not making a statement on income taxes!
     
  2. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,273
    Likes Received:
    777
    You have missed the point altogether.
     
  3. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Then please enlighten me. One never gets too old to learn! I eagerly await your response!
     
    #3 OldRegular, Nov 14, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 14, 2012
  4. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,176
    Likes Received:
    610
    You nailed it! Furthermore, companies don't hire more people because they have the money, they hire more people because demand for their goods and/or services are increasing.
     
  5. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,273
    Likes Received:
    777
    The "rich" is defined by the left as someone who makes 250,000 or more. Within that group there are many business owners who would love to expand their business and grow it. Regardless of the demand for any product or service if the cost of having an employee goes up (ie obamacare) it cuts back on the number of employees they can hire.

    Also if the cost of running a business (ie higher taxes) goes up then again there is less money to hire employees.

    While the demand for product and services plays a major role in the decision to hire more employees so does the cost of running a business (ie overhead).

    So yes higher taxes do effect the employment numbers. To say that it is only demand or only taxes that effects employment is to be ignorant of the bigger picture. Both are a factor in the ability to hire more employees.
     
    #5 Revmitchell, Nov 14, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 14, 2012
  6. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,176
    Likes Received:
    610
    Yes, quite true.

    Yes, if the business owner is an S-Corp owner or an owner of a limited liability partnership.


    Not as much as conservatives like to think. You need to differentiate between personal taxes (as on your 1040 form) and business taxes.

    Of the people that make more than $250,000, only 3% are business owners that have a direct relationship between personal income and business income, that is people that own S-Corps or limited liability partnerships. Most of these 3% are professionals--doctors, lawyers, dentists, accountants, plumbers, etc. So if their personal taxes go up $10,000 are they going to lay off their receptionist? Their paralegal? Their dental assistant?
     
    #6 InTheLight, Nov 14, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 14, 2012
  7. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,273
    Likes Received:
    777
    Also it serves no good to raise taxes on these people. It will make no significant dent in the debt. The true purpose in raising taxes on the wealthy is not about debt but about making them poorer. Wealth redistribution. It is about the liberal definition of "fair".

    It just serves no good purpose.
     
  8. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Did I say anything about raising taxes on the rich? Did I even hint that taxes should be raised on the rich?
     
  9. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,273
    Likes Received:
    777
    Yes you did:

     
  10. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    It should be obvious by now that I don't care how the left defines anything!

    That is correct. Therefore, the producer must raises his prices as high as the consumer will bear and/or cut production costs. The OP is quite clear that the producer must make a profit if he is to continue to produce!

    Again you are stating the obvious! The idea of producing something to sell is to make a profit. If the producer sells that which he producer at cost then, unless he is filthy rich and wants to squander his money, he will go out of business!

    Business, whether corporations or not, must make a profit or go out of business. I expect that most corporations pass the cost of income taxes on to the consumer. I am not sure that small privately owned companies are as adept at doing that. I would also note that certain taxed can be claimed as an operating expense.

    The point of his OP is to say that the the blanket statement raising taxes on the rich is a job killer is a giant myth

    Enlighten me Revmitchell, if income taxes are raised on the overpaid Hollywood leftists does that hurt jobs; if income taxes are raised on the overpaid "jocks" does that hurt jobs?

    Just read today that Apple sold 3 million iPads in one day. If Apple had produced a product for which there was no demand, even if it were made in China, then they would have problems.

    A year or so ago HP was dumping its equivalent of the iPad at cost or below. HP produced a product for which there were no consumers. Not good business!

    A producer without a consumer is not a job creator! Unless, of course, it is the Federal government. But then they take our money to give to others. Also not good.
     
  11. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,273
    Likes Received:
    777
    And I just showed you otherwise.
     
  12. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    You are correct. I should have asked if I advocated raising taxes on the rich. I did not.
     
  13. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,176
    Likes Received:
    610
    If the additional tax revenues from the tax on the rich were to be dedicated to reducing the deficit it represents 7.7% of the deficit (in fiscal 2012). That is a significant chunk of deficit reduction.

    [Numbers used: Budget deficit of $1.1 Trillion in 2012. Tax on rich would raise $85 billion per year.]
     
  14. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    I disagree. You demonstrated absolutely nothing.

    Surely you would not argue that raising taxes on overpaid corporate executives is going to affect job creation. {I have already mention overpaid Hollywood elites and overpaid "jocks".} It is unlikely that raising taxes on corporations would affect jobs and I am not advocating higher taxes. I would remind you of the following:

     
  15. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,176
    Likes Received:
    610
    Raising the personal W-2 wage taxes on rich people is not a job killer. That is the myth.
     
  16. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Simple enough for Revmitchell to understand!
     
  17. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Old saying, "Nothing happens until someone sells something." These days most sales are generated by advertising.

    New saying, "50% of all business starts go bankrupt within 5 years." New small businesses may generate jobs buy they are temps. And who ultimately covers the loss from the bankruptcies? The working class.
     
  18. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Ultimately the consumer pays everything. This consumer may be rich or of modest means, makes no difference. The rich can simply afford it!

    Actually the above statement needs further explanation. In this country we have producers {who themselves are consumers}, we have consumers who earn, and then we have another type who consume, a group I will call takers. These are those folks who consume, in part or in whole, at the expense of the producers and working consumers through the largess of government, a government that takes from the producers and consumers who earn.
     
    #18 OldRegular, Nov 14, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 14, 2012
  19. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Taxing vs not taxing the rich is the wrong argument altogether.

    Preventing the super duper rich from monopolizing everything and buying up all their competitors should be the argument.

    Having vs not having a fiat money system that strangles us with debt should be the argument.

    Stop arguing about fluff and get down to the real issues already.
     
    #19 poncho, Nov 15, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 15, 2012
  20. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    18,908
    Likes Received:
    94
    You forgot about foreign investors coming in & buying American companies.

    Besides how do you halt the fed? Monumental task...face it there are no DeWitt Clinton's & Andy Jackson's left in this country! And BO is a disaster as a leader. Where is the vision, leadership & money to make REAL CHANGE comings from?
     

Share This Page

Loading...