It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


I hope it is ok if I ask this again because I made my mistakes on my other thread.

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 09:46 AM
Can anyone debunk this Liberal claim thank you the Person is saying higher Income Tax creates a Incentive to create Jobs is there really any Incentive to hire new Workers if you as the Owner of the Company is/are paying youself less money to avoid higher Taxes also how do tax cuts give the Owners a Incentive to hire ?

Thom Hartmann: But it seemed, just common sense. I remember back in the ‘80s, I owned a business, International Wholesale Travel in Atlanta, Georgia. That business has, since we sold it done over 200 billion dollars in business. And there was a year when we were doing really, really well and I could either write a big check to myself or not. And I decided not to, because I didn’t want to pay the increased taxes. I put it back into the business. How can cutting taxes on rich people, on high income people, do anything other than encourage them to take the money out of their companies, out of their businesses.

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 09:53 AM
Why didnt you just edit your op on the other one?

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 09:57 AM

Originally posted by mikejohnson2006
That business has, since we sold it done over 200 billion dollars in business.

First of all this is hard to believe as true. Which business is he talking about that generated 200 billion dollars? That is the first indication that this is nonsense, the second is this notion that if he writes himself a bonus and that bonus gets taxed, he has a higher incentive to keep the money in his business. But the money will still be taxed regardless, if he gives it to his employees it is taxed, if he uses it to build a new plant, he is taxed and has to pay permits which is just another tax. So this desperate attempt to make taxes look like a good thing is as pathetic as a rapist trying to convince a woman that the rape is somehow a good thing and will prevent future calamities from happening and is somehow crucial for society to continue to exist.
edit on 24-9-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 09:58 AM
reply to post by mikejohnson2006

It depends on the type of tax structure in place for the higher taxes and what can and cannot be written off.
It seems that the example you gave in your own post indicates that for at least that year in the 80's the tax code was written in a way that allowed him to not pay taxes on a chunk of money if it went back into the business.

It also depends on the type of return the business is looking at and if it can be kept in the business without being considered taxable income, than having to give it up for no reason does create a reason to keep it. One way to keep it is to increase the size of the business and hire more workers.

But there are times when it does not work to just higher taxes. If there is no place to safely stash the money in the company according to the tax code (which changes so often that I don't even try to keep up, there are professionals who focus on that and if you are in this kind of situation they are worth the money, but anyway) if there is no way to keep the money tax free or tax reduced in the business then it all comes down to the math. Do you keep more of it by cutting yourself (and/or investors) a check and waving goodbye to the rest, or do you stand to keep more by investing in the business and hoping for an even bigger cut later on. When the tax code is written in a way that discourages cutting yourself a take home check and encourages reinvesting, that stands to create jobs.

I think in our current global situation that it is important to write it even more specifically to reward job growth in this country. While that sounds like the credit our President suggested, I still want to see the paperwork because he did not say jobs "in this country" he said jobs "in America" which includes our free trade NAFTA partners Canada and Mexico.

While that would still be an improvement over all the jobs we have lost to isn't a sure fire fix for the job situation in this country and I do NOT think tax dollars should go to support job creation in Canada or Mexico. If that is the way the plan is written then it is an epic fail.

So the short answer for my long rambling one is it all comes down the specifics of a particular year's tax code as it impacts a particular type of business. So, too many variables to give a straight answer and the politicians can make it sound whichever way they want without "technically" being wrong.

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 10:00 AM
reply to post by mikejohnson2006

Your link didn't work.

But the way I see it is, if I have to pay more taxes, which leaves me with three options.

1: Keep the business small as long as it’s making a profit, passing on bonus to my employees as a way of thanks.

2: Move the business to a more economically friendly environment.

3: Or…Close up shop.

If I have to pay less taxes it can go another route.

1: If my product sells well, I can expand, providing more jobs, hence bigger profits.

2: I can get greedy and spend all my profits on myself. (This idea rarely pans out as it will crash eventually)

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 10:04 AM
If you owned and sold such a lucrative business....surely you have a tax consultant.

Ask your CPA, he/she will have your answer.
edit on 24-9-2011 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)

ETA: Your link goes to "page not found".
edit on 24-9-2011 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 10:33 AM
reply to post by mikejohnson2006

It's hard for me to read that question as there is no punctuation. Hard for me to wrap around that run on sentence without getting confused.

Does it really matter though? No amount of facts ever made anyone change their mind lol.

top topics


log in