posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 08:29 PM
I know that there is another thread containing similar topic matter but I wanted to offer another perspective and I felt it deserved it's own
All of the evidence that i've seen clearly shows that tax cuts for the "wealthy" does not, in itself, create jobs. If it were so, why were 22
million jobs created under the Clinton era tax rates and only 1 million during the Bush years? Why didn't the Bush tax cuts result in millions of
new jobs? It's because tax cuts for the wealthy and jobs are only coincidentally linked and one is not the direct result of the other. It's
something that the wealthy would like to have you believe but it's just not true.
Just because a wealthy business owner is awarded a lower tax rate doesn't insure that he/she will elect to hire more people or expand their business.
He/she may elect to take an extra vacation or just put the money in the bank, they do a lot of that you know. That's why rich people have bank
accounts and poor people don't. The only mechanism that will accomplish this feat is to increase the demand for the product they are selling. When
the demand for their product exceeds their ability to produce, they will consider expanding their business to accommodate the demand and in doing so
they will hire new people. Although, in this "Free Trade" environment, you may have to move to China or India to get one of those jobs.
I'm beginning to contemplate the idea that raising taxes on the rich may produce more jobs than lowering them. Common logic tells me that if we're
going to collect taxes, we must do so from where the money is and not from where it isn't. Under this line of reasoning, if the rich want to spread
out the tax burden then they need to learn to spread the wealth as well. When the "few" control the vast majority of the nations wealth, it makes
it extremely hard for the rest of the population to meet the revenue demands of our nations government.
Depak Chapra once gave a very enlightening lecture regarding the peril of hoarding or taking things out of circulation. It was fundamentally based on
the idea that if everyone hoarded their money and refused to spend it, then eventually there would be no new money out there for them to acquire.
Someone else once said that it's no sin to become rich but it is a sin to die rich.
Therefore, I putting up for debate, the idea that maybe we should tax the ultra rich proportionally according to the percentage of the nation's
wealth they possess and not necessarily on their annual income. That way they have a choice to either spend it or get taxed for hoarding it. The 1.8
trillion that american corporations are currently sitting on isn't creating a single job so long as they refuse to spend it and giving them more
money isn't going to change the situation.
On the other hand, these corporations could decide to opt for more of a win-win situation if they just chose to spend some of that money to increase
pay and benefits for their current workers who would then pick up more of the nation's tax burden while at the same time spending their extra income
creating the demand for more products and more jobs. The corporation would not only enjoy a lower tax rate but they would also have a happier,
healthier and more productive workforce. So maybe, just maybe, we should tax the ultra rich to the point that hoarding vast amounts of money just
isn't worth the trouble. I mean when is enough, enough?
In closing I would like to emphatically state that until such time that we as a nation demand legislation to mandate that products put up for sale in
America be made in America, our jobs are not coming back, period. I mean, unless you're willing to work for the same wages as a worker in China,
Mexico or India, it's just not going to happen. This "Free Trade" environment is the other job killing elephant in the room that no one is willing
to talk about.