Tax breaks for the rich create new jobs? How?

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here.

Argument 1: business' will be able to hire more people

The tax breaks are income tax breaks, right? Therefor when you pay a person on your payroll, wouldn't it be a tax write off and that money not considered part of income?

So in essence they would be able to hire the same amount of people with or without the tax breaks, since the paychecks are deducted from income.



Argument 2: It will help people create new companies that give jobs to people.

Start up costs and expenses these companies and people may need to pay in order to start these companies and growth of a company are tax deductible. therefor this argument holds no water.


Argument 3: They already pay so much in taxes, why should they be forced to pay more?

I will agree that the wealthy pay more in taxes than any other tax bracket, but that is because they can afford it. However they don't always pay as much as one might think, as there are many loopholes in our tax codes designed by the wealthy for the wealthy in an effort to already lessen there taxes.


The fact that these cheats want tax breaks will do nothing but make there own pockets thicker.

They are lying to us people! Wake up and smell the coffee.

If I am wrong on any of my points, please let me know, as the tax codes are so screwed up that it is hard to understand all of it.




posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Well the rich will be able to hire more butlers and gardeners. They could also hire a new cook and even splash out on a hooker or two...



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by illuminnaughty
Well the rich will be able to hire more butlers and gardeners. They could also hire a new cook and even splash out on a hooker or two...


Yeah, but aren't they tax deductible in the first place?



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
The Bush tax cuts on the wealthy have been in effect for nearly 10 years. How many net jobs do we have over that period?



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   
When is the last time a poor person offered you employment?

Taxing the rich does not take away from their income, nor lower their standard of living as some would hope. Rather, it tends to take away from the amount they invest in companies, start-ups, expansions, etc. The last three items being job-creators. Obviously this is a generality and as always there are exceptions.

Does it help small businesses? No, not usually. But when faced with an unemployment rate of nearly ten percent -- we need people working. Whether it's as a customer service rep for a Fortune 500 or a stock boy for Wal-mart -- now is not the time to nitpick where these jobs are created, so long as we get people back to work.

Of course, expanding the Federal Government to create jobs is not the answer since it's the taxpayers that ultimately pay these salaries and in case you didn't hear -- we are already broke.

We need to put the money in the hands of those most likely to spend it. That would be the rich.

Edit to add: If you look at many of the arguments in favor of taxing the rich, it boils down to jealously. Would I love to have millions at my disposal? Sure. But I don't. I also don't begrudge those that have attained wealth and are in control of the marketplace and the direction in which businesses head.

People are quick to say "he/she has too much money, it's not fair". But they don't take the time to see where that money goes and how it does benefit those of us with less.

Again, poor people can not offer you employment.

edit on 10-12-2010 by lpowell0627 because: additional ramblings



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   
The more money in people's pockets the more jobs there should be. More money means more consumption. More consumption means more business and industry to satisfy consumption and more business and industry mean more jobs.

The whole "rich people" thing is moot.

Of course in our wonderfully cosmopolitan borderless unified world this basic and fully valid formula looses some potency as consumption on one side of the globe creates jobs on the other side. I guess if you dont mind moving to China or India the formula still applies.

It's high past time to get isolationist. All of us.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by aching_knuckles
The Bush tax cuts on the wealthy have been in effect for nearly 10 years. How many net jobs do we have over that period?


Yeah, the tax breaks have done a great job in helping people to lose jobs.

With the tax breaks, the rich have no reason to invest in new business opportunities in an effort to make up for the money they are taxed.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   
As a practical example, I would point to the recent quarterly earnings reports that show record quarterly earnings. It is interesting that there has not yet been a record hiring gain to match.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by thewholepicture
Yeah, the tax breaks have done a great job in helping people to lose jobs.

With the tax breaks, the rich have no reason to invest in new business opportunities in an effort to make up for the money they are taxed.


You have that completely backwards.

You tax them less, so they do invest in business. Not the other way around. The higher the tax, the less they invest in businesses and job creation.

Their salaries don't take the hit from additional taxes -- the money they spend does.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by thewholepicture
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here.

Argument 1: business' will be able to hire more people

The tax breaks are income tax breaks, right? Therefor when you pay a person on your payroll, wouldn't it be a tax write off and that money not considered part of income?

So in essence they would be able to hire the same amount of people with or without the tax breaks, since the paychecks are deducted from income.


The paychecks are deducted from income, but so are the taxes. For many private business owners, their company's profit is essentially their paycheck. When company funds and personal funds are not completely separated, the taxes end up drawing from the same pool of money as the paychecks. Certainly, there would be less for paychecks if more went to taxes.




Argument 2: It will help people create new companies that give jobs to people.

Start up costs and expenses these companies and people may need to pay in order to start these companies and growth of a company are tax deductible. therefor this argument holds no water.


Many companies are started with funds from venture capitalists and other unconventional investment funds. Venture capital is mostly weathly people's money. The taxes will be drawing from the same money that would otherwise be invested: at least some in the form of venture capital, and therefore in a way that funds new businesses. If their income is taxed before it gets invested, the venture capitalists will not be able to fund as many start-ups.



Argument 3: They already pay so much in taxes, why should they be forced to pay more?

I will agree that the wealthy pay more in taxes than any other tax bracket, but that is because they can afford it. However they don't always pay as much as one might think, as there are many loopholes in our tax codes designed by the wealthy for the wealthy in an effort to already lessen there taxes.


The fact that these cheats want tax breaks will do nothing but make there own pockets thicker.


The wealthy minority pay the vast majority of taxes. You can't expect people to want to give their money to the government. You could afford to buy some food for starving people, do you think that the starving people should have the right to force you to buy them food, just because you can?
edit on 12/10/10 by OnceReturned because: format



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
The more money in people's pockets the more jobs there should be. More money means more consumption. More consumption means more business and industry to satisfy consumption and more business and industry mean more jobs.

The whole "rich people" thing is moot.

Of course in our wonderfully cosmopolitan borderless unified world this basic and fully valid formula looses some potency as consumption on one side of the globe creates jobs on the other side. I guess if you dont mind moving to China or India the formula still applies.

It's high past time to get isolationist. All of us.


If I'm not mistaken, I once heard that soon after the American Revolution America did isolate it's self from the rest of the world in an effort to help people to rely on products made in the United States.

From that came The Great Industrial Revolution, which inspired Americans and people through out the world to create innovative ideas that make production of products not only better quality, but quicker production.

Now we have quicker production, but less quality.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by lpowell0627

Originally posted by thewholepicture
Yeah, the tax breaks have done a great job in helping people to lose jobs.

With the tax breaks, the rich have no reason to invest in new business opportunities in an effort to make up for the money they are taxed.


You have that completely backwards.

You tax them less, so they do invest in business. Not the other way around. The higher the tax, the less they invest in businesses and job creation.

Their salaries don't take the hit from additional taxes -- the money they spend does.


Well, you guys keep saying the same thing, but the people getting the tax cuts arent doing what you say they would be. The past 10 years has proved this...the tax cuts have been there, and we have done nothing but lose jobs. Im sure you can find some way to blame it on "liberals", but the facts remain that jobs havent been created.

The top 5% own 62% of all wealth. This equals out to 32.2 Trillion dollars....if they cant create jobs with that kind of cash, they arent going to even with less money paid in taxes. It does not make financial sense to create jobs in america now that outsourcing is "accepted".



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by OnceReturned

The wealthy minority pay the vast majority of taxes.


I dont know how many times I have to bring this up....they own basically ALL the money. Here let me give you stats.

In terms of financial wealth, the top 1% own 42.9%. The top 20% (including that 1%) own 93% of the financial wealth in America. The bottom 80% own 7% of all wealth in America.

There is an estimated 48.5 trillion dollars in American wealth. That means the top 1% have about 21 Trillion dollars. The bottom 80% (4 out of 5 Americans) share less than 4 trillion dollars.

The top 5% own 62% of the wealth (about 32 trillion dollars), but only pay about 54% of the total taxes.

The Bush tax cuts have been in effect nearly 10 years, and we have lost a #load of jobs.

So how can you just stare facts in the face and say "you are wrong!"????
edit on 10-12-2010 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
heres a thought, they say the wealthy pay most of the taxes right?

Maybe that's because they own most of the land.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
The tax break thing stems from david stockman and reagan - trickle down theory, not trickle down fact, but theory. Stockman has since said the idea has zero merit.

Personal tax money is not used for jobs, but to pay the interest on the debt we owe the fed. The fed is paying the operating expenses for the next eight months if you doubt that. So raising personal taxes or lowering them has no effect on the government as it is broke. It only has an effect on the person paying them and no one else.

lastly, if the "trickle down theory" is so perfect, how come business' are sitting on nearly 1 trillion in cash right now - this is MSM published numbers? If the theory holds, extra cash means spending, but in the case, extra cash means hoarding. Fact: In times of trouble, people hoard, people and business'.

But since no one on this board can change policy at all, the discussion is just for fun so don't get angry or frustrated - think if it like monday morning quaterbacking.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


Outsourcing. A rich man's creation? Hardly, rather the greedy government, desperate for even more money to spend, created the problem of outsourcing by making it financial suicide to operate and hire within the US.

Nobody said rich people are stupid. If they can hire someone for 1/5th the cost here, why shouldn't they? Don't you pay 1/5th less on the same product when you can?

The problem is that we need legislation to make it beneficial to hire and operate here. "Rich people" didn't create those laws -- politicians did.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   
double post
edit on 10-12-2010 by thewholepicture because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by lpowell0627
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


Outsourcing. A rich man's creation? Hardly, rather the greedy government, desperate for even more money to spend, created the problem of outsourcing by making it financial suicide to operate and hire within the US.

Nobody said rich people are stupid. If they can hire someone for 1/5th the cost here, why shouldn't they? Don't you pay 1/5th less on the same product when you can?

The problem is that we need legislation to make it beneficial to hire and operate here. "Rich people" didn't create those laws -- politicians did.



And how much do the majority of politicians make? Most of them may not be considered the top 1% or even the top 5% but I sure don't consider them poor or middle class even.

How much does it cost to even run for a political seat in congress or the senate?



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Now let us REMEMBER that we are talking about everybody making over 250grand a year here as being rich. Dont even buy into this bulls#it. And no it really wont create more jobs that it the lie that has to be told becosue the american public has been brainwashed. The truth is that the government needs more money for its mad spending spree so they get the rest of us thinking that the "wealthy" are screwing us over some how.

If it were a matter of more jobs then we would have more jobs now as the rate is the same now as it will be when this passes.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by thewholepicture
 


Here's some politician net worths for you: net worth

The poli's might not be the richest in the world but they dont have to be. Not with all the power and clout they have. Some people get off on money and others power.





top topics
 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join