Tax breaks for the rich create new jobs? How?

Originally posted by FreeSafety

Originally posted by lpowell0627We need to put the money in the hands of those most likely to spend it. That would be the rich.

You surely don't believe that. Rich people don't get rich by spending money they don't need to spend.

Yes, the rich are the ones who hire those with less than they have. HOWEVER, they only hire people when the workers they already have can't keep up with the demand for their products or services. They don't hire simply because they have more money and decide to do someone a favor and give them a job. To create jobs, you must increase consumer spending. The only way to increase consumer spending is to put money in the hands of people who NEED it, because they need to spend it.

Give a rich man $3,000. How much of it will he spend? Not much of it, if any at all, because that money doesn't even make a noticeable difference to him. He puts it in the bank or in the market to let it make him more money.

Give a person who struggles financially $1,000. How much will he spend? $1,000. Maybe he puts the new tires on his car that he's been needing. Maybe he gets his propane tank filled to heat his home for the winter. Maybe he replaces the ten-year-old television in his living room. Whatever he does, he spends that money because he needs to.

The rich person's lifestyle is less affected in the down economy than those who struggle to get by.When the less fortunate have money, they have to spend it. Their spending creates a surge in the economy, because it increases consumer demand.

Over the past 3 years, in the industrial sector, there was a sharp reversal of policy concerning stored products. Companies, just four years ago, were keeping finished goods inventory on-hand so they could fill orders at a moments notice. As the economy declined, those same companies started stressing JIT, or just-in-time, production. They now want to have the order placed before they create the part, and they want the finished good to roll off the assembly line and go directly onto the transportation vehicle to the distributor. They want to sit on no inventory whatsoever, basically because they fear being stuck holding the bag if and when the distributor goes under. What that means is rather than needing your workers to turn out all the products they can over the course of their shift, the companies now want them to turn out just enough to fill that day's orders. Once they get that day's orders filled, the companies need them to stop, which frees them up to do another job- which means the company needs fewer workers. Additionally, it means no warehouse workers, because you don't need a warehouse when you don't keep any inventory on hand.

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.

Some people may be jealous, but that doesn't describe most. The rich own the most of the wealth, and their tax burdens- all loopholes considered- don't match up with the amount of the country's wealth they own.

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.

I've never seen or heard anyone say it's not fair for someone to have whatever amount of money they have. What I see people saying is "if you own 90% of the wealth, then you owe 90% of the tax burden". That's not jealousy, that's common sense.

I am tiring of regurgitating the principles in these threads:You almost had me convinced in your post until you went there (90%) above:

" 5 guys walk into a bar: a rabbi; a pastor;, a southern Baptist preacher; a yogi; and a lama: All 5 are enjoying the bars music warmth and congenial atmosphere: All 5 order a beer who should get charged more?.
They are equally partaking of the "common goods and services". You don't charge the westerners more than the penniless lama. "Simply because they can afford it"...
What happens is the other fellows buy the thirsty lama whatever he'll drink.

Originally posted by FreeSafety

Again, poor people can not offer you employment

Not directly. Indirectly, however, it's the poor and middle class having to spend what money they have that creates the need for jobs, and jobs are only created when there's a need for them.

[

reply to post by thewholepicture


Im not sure if they create jobs, but they sure create record profits for the companies.....

Article

The nation’s workers may be struggling, but U.S. companies just had their best quarter ever.

U.S. businesses earned profits at an annual rate of $1.659 trillion in the third quarter, according to a Commerce Department report released Tuesday. That is the highest figure recorded since the government began keeping track over 60 years ago, at least in nominal or noninflation-adjusted terms.

Corporate profits have been doing extremely well for a while. Since their cyclical low in the fourth quarter of 2008, profits have grown for seven consecutive quarters, at some of the fastest rates in history.

Its not like they make a huge profit.....just the highest in the past 60 years......im sure they definantly want to start hiring more people..... (sarcasm)

reply to post by 46ACE


I don't know if I was taken advantage of or not, all I know is that I did what was required. My point was that it is not the rich people that make the world go around but rather it's the workers. Rich people just happen to be fortunate enough to be handsomely rewarded for what is actually very little work and risk. At this point in time, a great percentage of business owners didn't even start their businesses but rather they inherited them. I think the new term for these people is "Trust Babies." Many of the stevedoring companies I worked for are now run by descendants of the original entrepreneur and these people do not know the meaning of "work" or "risk" as their wealth was dumped in their laps.

Lower taxes for the wealthy will not bring back american manufacturing jobs, most of those are gone forever due to the fact that some of our current "Free Trade" deals allow business to manufacture their goods in a foreign country with a standard of living grossly inferior to ours and then sell their products here in order to reap huge profits. Until such a time as we adopt laws to mandate that products be manufactured in the same economy as they are sold in, our jobs will not come back home.

The only jobs currently being created by american tax cuts are those being created in China and India by our multi-national corporations and the more free trade we allow, the worse the problem will get. Our manufacturing base has gone overseas and is currently being utilized to lower the standard of living here in America buy attempting to get american workers to compete with foreign workers who can work for much less due to the difference in our economies. The savings realized by utilizing cheap foreign labor is not used to lower the price of their goods but rather it is used to pad their profit margins.

When NAFTA was enacted, business said that the cost savings would be used to keep prices down for consumers. Well, I can tell you that when you go to purchase a new automobile, the price is the same whether it was built in Mexico or the U.S., there is absolutely no difference.

The guise that utilizing foreign labor will keep consumer prices down is a flat out lie. All it really does is to keep profits going up, up and up.

Besides everything I just said, how can you justify tax breaks for wealthy corporations at a time when 25% of all american corporations paid no income tax whatsoever in 2009. How do you give a tax break to someone like Exxon Mobile or General Electric who currently pay no taxes? For years, Archer Daniels Midland, one of the companies for which we loaded hundreds of vessels was the largest recipient of corporate welfare in the U.S. and they may still be today. All the while, they would run their public image commercials on T.V. boasting about how good a company they were and about how they "feed the world." What a crock of #.

I say, tax the living hell out of the wealthy and do it now! If I am ever so fortunate as to be included in sector of our population that is considered wealthy, I will be glad to pay my taxes. A longshoreman from my dad's generation always said, "I only wish I had to pay a million dollars in taxes because if I did it would mean that I had made millions more, and there is no good excuse for greed."

Tax Breaks for the rich won't create new jobs.

We're going to fire all our employee' in 2014. Already now every transaction over $600 needs a W-9 sent to the IRS.

In 2014 any employer who has employees who haven't gotten the mandatory ObamaCare...those Employers will be FINED.

So you either have to fire your employees who haven't gotten the mandatory ObamaCare...face the possible litigation from them......or you fire them BEFORE 2014.

We are going to see alot more unemployed over the new Federal Tax, ObamaCare.

Tax breaks for the rich won't create 1 job.

Millions of jobs were created actually. The labor force is a constantly growing number. Here are the actual statistics:

Total Number of Employed at the end of 2000: 136,891,000

Total Number of Employed in most recent report: 138,888,000

At the height of employment in Jan 2008: 146,421,000

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

reply to post by tiger5

OK I will bit.... Millionaires. try that for size.

Can you elaborate on this, do you mean people who have a salary of a million dollars or people with a net worth of a million dollars??

Why are you asking such a question?

You got to be kidding right???

If you don't even know who classifies as "rich" then how in the world are you going to tax them more???

This just proves that a lot of people like you who have so much angst against the so called "rich" have no idea who you are even talking about.

You just see someone who has a bigger house and a nicer car than you and then immediately classify them as "rich".

Seems like a classical symptom of envy to me.

Are you perhaps a lawyer.

No, I am not a lawyer. Thanks for making a crazy generalization though, as if all lawyers are greedy rich and out to get you

Do you not know the rich when you see them...

What do you mean??

Someone who YOU might classify as rich could probably be considered middle class by some.

Just because someone has a 6000sq foot home and drives around in a BMW or a Rolls-Royce doesn't mean that they are "rich". I would simply classify them as "upper middle class".

Here try this one . The rich are the people 20% of the population that own 80% of the wealth.

So go ahead and make your point..

If you had one that is

Wow, I am not sure if you really meant this or if you are being sarcastic.

This means that people who make over 50k are considered "rich" by you.

I hope that you were just joking because if not, then all your credibility has been lost.

The government assumes all rich people own businesses and plan to expand them. While this thought is ridiculous to any low-middle class working person the higher ups seem to not think like that. They do not think of poor people as people but as numbers. While a rich person buying a yacht for 400k might pay 50k in taxes the poor man buying his 1999 ford for 18k only pays 3k in taxes. So they take from the poor just as much as they do from the rich but the rich man doesn't have to pay back more.

Edit: Some rich people want to make more money so even when they do receive tax cuts they could and frequently do use it to invest in low income job providers. So the rich give money to corporations so that they can create low income jobs and turn the unfortunate into check-to-check slaves.

They create debt slaves out of the poor class with this method. Which apparently is craved by the slaves. As long as the government continues with fast food, movies and other forms of brainwash it will continue as they plan. The world is a crazy place.

Tax breaks for the rich create new jobs?

Say what? Were do people come up with this stuff.

How?

You should quit watching the propaganda on tv, remember your just watching millionaires on tv who get there instructions from billionaires and so on up the ladder of money's. First the rich don't pay more taxes, them and the whole government and system are buddy buddy, and in business, hence they pay less taxes after it's all been said and done. Loop holes upon loop holes and anything they spend usually comes back to them, it is the american dream last I checked after all, mo money mo money mo money......What do people learn in school these days, the rich don't create wealth of the country or state, the rich are a product of the country and state which by it's own system rules get to surpass the rules to certain degrees, and since this is based on them loser's, and there originally evolved worlds that they used to follow, the rich follow the pyramid structure system, so when they reach a certain number in money's they can go international. I mean duh is that not what all business people hope to achieve, expanding there business. Has the last couple of thousands of years really not sunk in there. It's all business, on different levels, even government does not have the power to make jobs for everyone, it to is a business when its all said and done, that is all. And sometimes that business corespondents with wealth for a lot of people for whatever period of time, and sometimes not.

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

Ya maybe some jobs might, but not likely, and if it happens it would be in India were profits can be greater. Also it would depend on what stage of expanding the business is in, and what it does. But if you give rich people more money or even no taxes at all, they will do with it the same as everybody else, spend it on personal profit or whatever is there fancy.

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

Thats pretty silly, but sure why not, I'm sure someone somewhere will get hired from doing that. Supply and demand, the rich cant create anything there is no market for, but they can corner and control the market if given the incentives. # this society can't even get past fossil fuels, and you can be sure there are technology's out there that are already in existence, or can be made and updated to surpass the combustion engine or even get rid of it all together, but it's not about making something better, it's about the bottom line.

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

you said it yourself loopholes and all that, if you have a boatload of money and resources and time, I'm sure one could find a way around all those pesky taxes, while still giving the impression of paying more then your fair share. define paying taxes, and why people pay taxes in the first place? The only taxes they really have to pay is the politician tax, so as to change the rules in there favor.

reply to post by zero1020


Answer this: Can you tell me who is "rich" please?

How much does your salary have to be in order to be "rich"???

Originally posted by Steam
reply to post by zero1020

 

Answer this: Can you tell me who is "rich" please?

How much does your salary have to be in order to be "rich"???

5 million+ net worth. If a person is making 600k a year, they are rich. Hell anything above 100k a year is considered rich when comparing to 20k a year like most low income.

reply to post by zero1020


OK, so considering that logic someone who makes 20k a year is rich compared to someone who survives on $4 a day.

Where do you draw the line then???

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...

There was a post on NYT from a rich person. He honestly said that with the extra money, he doesn't plan to hire even more cooks, gardeners, hookers or politicians.

Case in point: tax the very rich.

Originally posted by Steam
reply to post by zero1020

 

OK, so considering that logic someone who makes 20k a year is rich compared to someone who survives on $4 a day.

Where do you draw the line then???

I'm gonna call troll on this one. Nobody is stupid enough to make that argument unless they expect angry responses in return. Don't bother replying because I won't read it.

Originally posted by zero1020
5 million+ net worth. If a person is making 600k a year, they are rich. Hell anything above 100k a year is considered rich when comparing to 20k a year like most low income.

That's not a bad assessment at all. Tweak the numbers all you want, but that's a good starting point. As an aside note, 100k only go as far in places like NYC (been there, was paid that) -- honestly, you can't buy luxury or simply nice housing on an income like that. Just saying. I also lived there on 11k a year (paycheck), so please don't put a silver spoon in my mouth.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

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...

There was a post on NYT from a rich person. He honestly said that with the extra money, he doesn't plan to hire even more cooks, gardeners, hookers or politicians.

Case in point: tax the very rich.

Exactly,

The problem here is that people just throw around the word "rich" and don't even know who they are talking about.

Saying someone is rich is about the same as saying someone makes "a lot" of money.

Well, how much is "a lot" of money anyways.

We need a clear definition of what "rich" is.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by zero1020
5 million+ net worth. If a person is making 600k a year, they are rich. Hell anything above 100k a year is considered rich when comparing to 20k a year like most low income.

That's not a bad assessment at all. Tweak the numbers all you want, but that's a good starting point. As an aside note, 100k only go as far in places like NYC (been there, was paid that) -- honestly, you can't buy luxury or simply nice housing on an income like that. Just saying. I also lived there on 11k a year (paycheck), so please don't put a silver spoon in my mouth.

Well for the people not living like sardines in the sky 100k a year goes a very long way. When considering riches, the bottom line should always be just enough to afford home and food. Realistically you do not need those fancy cars and 5 bedroom houses. And if you do own those things, great, you're considered rich by most of the population.

reply to post by zero1020


What makes you think that 100k is "rich"???

Is it because 100k is more than your salary???

Tell that to someone who lives in NYC or any other big city and they will laugh in your face.

What you have to take into account is how much living expenses are in different areas.

Trying to slap an exact number on what defines "rich" just isn't going to work.

I don't see your doctors, lawyers, and small business owners as being rich, although they typically make a lot more that 100k.

I will tell you what I define as "rich".

Rich is the CEO of a fortune 100 company who has a net worth of tens to hundreds of millions.

Rich is a wall street banker who has billions of dollars in his bank account.

You get my flow??

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by thewholepicture
I will agree that the wealthy pay more in taxes than any other tax bracket, but that is because they can afford it.

So because they are smart enough to be able to make more money, they should be punished for it? Just because someone makes more money than you do, that's not an excuse to steal it from them just to hand it to those who don't - or won't - earn a living. It's THEIR money .. and we aren't entitled to take it. That makes them slaves to the state.

If people aren't careful, those that make the big $$$ (and they pay almost all the taxes) will either take their money elsewhere or they won't bother to make it anymore. Why should they work at making it if it's only going to be taken away? Read Atlas Shrugged. It's pretty darn accurate.

Wait, so you're saying if rich people paid their fair share, the minority of people wouldn't be holding the majority of wealth?

Taxes aren't stealing. I really have to tell you this? At least you aren't spouting nonsense like how it's going to create jobs when it hasn't. Also, isn't Atlas Shrugged about being selfish or something?

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
It's amazing how Obama is extending Tax Cuts and yet, the Republicans will still give him crap. Shows you these people really are immature crybabies.

Obama needs to STAND UP against the Righties and show who's boss.

Oh and tax breaks for the rich doesn't create jobs. Once again...the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

edit on 11-12-2010 by SeventhSeal because: (no reason given)

Well they aren't called the Party of No for nothing.

reply to post by thewholepicture


As far as I read in this post seems to be a lot of mixing apples and oranges. Tax the rich - but calling over 250,000 a year for couples rich ..well they are not. Maybe if we talked about people over a million.
Yes those tax cuts worked, a lot of jobs were created, the first couple of years. NO just keeping them same now probably won't create any jobs, but it might prevent losing more.
A lot of talk here about record profits and stuff ...that is large corporations mostly, whole different question than personal income tax.

reply to post by aching_knuckles


Im surprised people can argue with this.

but i think the real fix is lowering taxes by lowering the budget!.