Tax cuts for "Job Creators"

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Coleman2010, Aug 11, 2012.

  1. Coleman2010 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Location:
    NYC
    #1
    I never understood how people fell for the Republican talking point that giving tax breaks for the rich "job creators" creates jobs.

    The point to a successful business is to do more while keeping costs low. If a business can produce double the work without hiring, it is in their best interest not to hire.

    The rich are not job creators. We the consumer are. The more we spend, the more we increase demand for businesses to create products for us to buy. If we increase demand enough, businesses will hire staff to keep up to with the demand.

    If the government wants to help create jobs, they should cut taxes on the middle class and the poor. We are the ones that spend money and drive the economy. Not the rich.
     
  2. chrono1081 macrumors 604

    chrono1081

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    Isla Nublar
    #2
    Try telling the people on my facebook this. They think its "unfair" how the rich are treated.
     
  3. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #3
    I think a large part of it plays off the strong sense of individualism in the U.S. plus the idea behind the American Dream that says, basically, all it takes is hard work and you too can move upwards and onwards to achieve great things. Nearly everybody dreams of making it rich and thinks they have a real shot at it and they look forward to getting all those tax breaks once they've ascended to the ranks of the rich and famous. Of course the knock is that the U.S. isn't very socially mobile when compared to other similarly developed nations (and some studies say the U.S. is even becoming less socially mobile than in the past). On a side note, I believe this creates a cognitive dissonance that fuels much of the animosity against social safety net programs and the 'lazy' poor people that use them.

    IMO the ramifications of the middle class voter 'defending' the tax cuts to the wealthy are coming home to roost as the middle class continues to erode in the U.S. The irony here of course is that largely by their own actions average Americans have pushed themselves further away from the penthouse suite of the wealthy and closer towards the windowless cellar of the 'lazy' poor.

    I think there is a similar situation when it comes to education and healthcare. Poll a bunch of Americans and I bet the majority will say education and healthcare is top notch in the U.S. even though it's actually not. This is the danger of believing your own hype. Why work to improve things when you assume they are already the best?

    All in all, the cake is a lie.


    Lethal
     
  4. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #4
    Squire Gelfin put this quite eloquently in another thread. The rich were or may have been job creators on the road to becoming wealthy. Once they reach a certain point, their own interest in creating jobs flips and they seek to maintain their wealth by streamlining their operations, which almost always involves eliminating the expense that are employees.

    Jobs are created, in the sense of the rhetoric, by people who are striving to become rich, not by those who already are. A well-fed person takes a post-prandial nap while the hungry person is working to get food. This is why tax cuts on the rich do not help create real jobs while making them pay their share (increasing their tax burden) does tend to.
     
  5. senseless macrumors 68000

    senseless

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    Location:
    Pennsylvania, USA
    #5
    The "job creator" talking point is just as silly as the rich have to pay their "fair share" talking point. How about "nobody else has any money, so we need the rich to contribute more".
     
  6. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #6
    How about tax cuts for the rich were unfair and unnecessary and we need to let them expire? That's not really an increase.
     
  7. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #7
    The only way I see giving a tax cut to anybody would increase in hiring is for small businesses where people put their own money into the business to get it to succeed. But, for the big CEO's making $800,000+ it won't create jobs worth a crap. Lowering the corporate tax would be more effective than lowering the taxes on the wealthy CEO's and executives( though with all the loopholes, etc it doesn't sound like many corporations are actually paying the 35% tax rate).

    It's why I am flexible on the at what income level do we let the cuts expire. I would be fine at $500,000 or so being the cutoff level. Then again I don't know how much small business owners pay themselves.
     
  8. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #8
    Even then the number of jobs they create is tied to how much product and/or services their customers are buying (or projected to buy). If a company projects to sell 1 million widgets a quarter they will staff up different than if they plan to sell 10,000 widgets a quater. Of course this is w/o even factoring in automation and outsourcing. Bottom line is payroll works against profit so companies will hire the smallest workforce they think they can get away with and will only increase the workforce if customer demand dictates it.
     
  9. senseless macrumors 68000

    senseless

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    Location:
    Pennsylvania, USA
    #9
    Unecessary yes, but an across the board tax cut for all brackets was certainly fair. I'm more in favor of eliminating loopholes and tax dodges which IS unfair.
     
  10. Coleman2010 thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Location:
    NYC
    #10
    All the rich have done with their tax breaks is find places to hide it in foreign tax shelters. Accumulating more wealth over seas. Then they have the nerve to ask for a tax holiday to transfer the money held over seas back to the US without having to pay taxes on it.

    ----------

    If we are going to keep tax cuts for corporations and the rich it should be performance based. If your business invests in America and creates X number of jobs then they can receive the tax break. If they are not "creating jobs" then they don't get a tax break.

    ----------

    That is exactly my point. Direct tax breaks to the middle class and poor so we have more disposable income to buy products which will drive growth.

    What has slowed our economic recovery is fear. Everyone is afraid of losing their jobs so we are saving more and not spending. If we are not spending there is no reason for businesses to hire more staff.
     
  11. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #11
    Which is funny since everyone is, and every politician who ever ran for office says they will fix and no one ever fixes the loopholes. I guess that's more sad than funny.
     
  12. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #12
    Perhaps that is that "black humor" thing I keep hearing of. Or maybe the loophole promise is a convenient way of identifying who is lying through their teeth just to get elected, for whatever that is worth.
     
  13. AhmedFaisal Guest

    #13
    Hmm, how about this then, raise capital gains tax to 80% with the exemption of startup financing. Those get a tax holiday for 5-10 years (so long as they don't pull their money out) or until the venture goes IPO.

    The other thing you could do is raise corp income tax to 40% unless you create X% new domestic jobs per year (based on existing jobs), then you get a tax credit for up to 30% of corp income tax depending on how many jobs you create. You also get a 1 year payroll tax holiday for each job created so long as it's a genuine new job and not just a renaming of an old job/restructure job.
     
  14. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #14
    I think it is a little less black and white then how people portray it. Tax breaks absolutely can stimulate domestic business. Businesses move every day from one area to another because they go somewhere with lower taxes or more deductions. That doesn't mean that they necessarily are creating jobs, but it does mean a shift of jobs geographically speaking.

    Indeed consumer demand is what creates or destroys industries. However, company leadership can absolutely affect jobs in both positive and negative ways, and taxes do affect corporate leadership.

    I'm not against giving organizations tax breaks that create jobs, but only if they really are creating jobs. The old "I'm a corporation so give us some tax breaks" doesn't work for me...corporate wealthfare needs to end. If through a review process, a corporation can show they created X jobs in Y period of time, then I wouldn't be against it. Corporations try to eliminate jobs; just giving blanket deductions is no reason for them to employ domestic workers. But doing nothing is encouraging them to eliminate these jobs, or relocate their entire company. If a corporation is making jobs, raising the standard of living of its employees, and abiding by ethical guidelines, I see no reason not to help them succeed and encourage them to continue what they are doing.
     
  15. Coleman2010 thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Location:
    NYC
    #15
    You know what right wingers would call this? Government interfering with the free market! Stalinist! Socialist!!! :p
     
  16. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #16
    You really can only give tax breaks to rich and upper middle class because the poor and lower middle aren't paying federal income taxes.
     
  17. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #17
    From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities ...

     
  18. Coleman2010 thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Location:
    NYC
    #18
    Fox News myth.
     
  19. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #19
  20. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #20
    Don't get Fox news up here, but if the huffington post is saying 46% are not paying into federal income taxes I tend to believe them.
     
  21. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #21
    I don't need to distort your post.

    It's distorted enough as it is.

     
  22. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #22
    There is no distortion, nearly half of people in the US are exempt from paying federal income taxes.

    If you want more revenue you might want to widen the tax base a bit. The top 20% are pretty much shouldering the weight of the rest of the 80%.


    As for your quote you posted afterwards, when it happens in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 I tend to find the word "anomaly" to describe it as insulting.
     
  23. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #23
    Source please.
     
  24. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #24
    Huffington Post article above.
     
  25. Coleman2010 thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Location:
    NYC
    #25
    You left out this part.

     

Share This Page