Lowering Taxes does NOT create jobs?

[Joe Steel]

... Yep, Liberals are smarter than the heads of Major Companies that have invested millions to get the hell out of their Liberal Blue plague state's and into Texas.

Toyota ? Fooled by " Smoke and mirrors ", Microsoft ? Fooled by smoke and mirrors.

The countless other Businesses that have already crunched the numbers and made the decision to move to the Lone Star State ? Yep, fooled by ''smoke and mirrors ". ...

In fact, that's pretty much what happens. They decision-makers get an idea and push it regardless of how bad it is. They can't be persuaded by any amount for reasoned analysis. They just have to follow the fad because they get their big salaries and big bonuses for keeping the Board happy not for actual performance. If the Board is fooled by smoke and mirrors, they the operating officers have to play-along.

 

[jaeger19]

I see your point Jaeger.
Its worth noting that Ikea just announced that it plans to raise wages because they determined it is a good business strategy. I don't understand why so many business owners fail to see the connection- the importance of a stable work force. One of the best ways to motivate employees is to have a profit sharing scheme- when the business does well, the employees receive a bonus commensurate w their commitment to the enterprise. If they have a commitment to the workplace they will not tolerate slackers. My brother does this and he also has a democratic system of firing and hiring. Everyone is involved. Funny that the people who blab about liberty never bring up the fact, that most U.S. workplaces are run like authoritarian states.

I know why...

A few reasons:

One is that more than ever, CEO's and managers are beholden to stock holders that value that stock price and that quarterly report WAY more than the long term fiscal health of the company. The way to make money now is to play the market.. rather than invest in companies that give a good dividend and are relatively stable. I'll give you a good example. Years ago.. a prominent pharma company had a quarterly report that was NOT as good as expectations were.. and there stock price dipped because of it. The reason? A few of their most profitable drugs went generic.. and three new drugs that were expected to hit the market.. failed to get FDA approval. Pretty easy to understand the solution to the problem right? You don't have enough new and good drugs in your pipeline. So what did the CEO do? He announced cutting 30,000 yes .. 30 THOUSAND r and D related jobs. And you know what? Stock price soared.. because the decrease in salaries raised the quarterly profit margin.

Another reason for decreased wages is illegal immigration. It decreases the demand for workers and whats really bad is that it creates a second class worker that undermines our labor laws.

Another reason is laws that have hurt unionization. Now I am not a big fan on unionization as an employer.. but I think that just a its wrong to have laws that push unionization, I don't believe in laws that put obstacles in the way of employees and how they want to negotiate.

Another reason is quite frankly, the advent of bigger and bigger companies. That efficiency of the big company, decreases demand for workers and lowers wages.

I will say...you are absolutely right about the trend when it comes to employers. We have elevated them to almost gods in this country. All bow to the great "job creator"... Now they have the right to tell you what you ingest in your off hours, so on and so forth. When people talk about "liberty and slavery".. a lot of libertarians forget that actual slavery in this country was the creation of the free market and private business.. not government.

 

[pdog]

Redistribution would be just that. Money being redistributed from one individual to another.
So the brilliant liberals say.. that sucks.. MAKE JAEGER PAY MORE IN TAXES. Well guess what... that doesn't put one dang more dollar in your pocket.. NOT ONE.. NOT ONE.. get it now.. increasing taxes on wealthy people does not put more money in that persons pocket.

It’s your prerogative to have such a narrow definition of “redistribution”. If I raise your taxes and collect 10 dollars and then lower 10 other peoples taxes so they get 1 more dollar, most people on this planet are going to call that “redistribution”.

No.. I am NOT NOT making that assertion... AHHHH why can't you get this.. its easy. You make 7 dollars and hour.. and you pay no income tax because your income is too low with the bush tax cuts.. heck.. you get a check back from earned income credit and you get 7.7.. which is still 20 or 30% below the inflation adjusted minimum wage from 50 years ago.. THAT SUCKS...

You’re just saying what I already said. There’s no point here. As far as your assertion, you keep pointing out that we have negative tax rates and then pointing out that we still have inequality as if there is nothing else to the story. I pointed out that even with negative tax rates, peoples income is still below what it was, which is an explanation of why your assertion is oversimplified.

Agreed. But inefficiency of the redistribution does not mean that it’s not happening.
Another good portion goes to shore up Medicaid and medicare because that money was borrowed against.. so that money really doesn't go to poor or middle class money.
And another good portion goes to defense. And I know you say.. well.. that money goes to the employees... NO IT DOESN"T... because there is no mechanism that forces me as a defense contractor to pay my employees more.. I simply pocket more money and you've taken it from one rich person and given it to another.

First, you’re coming up with possible inefficiencies in the redistribution, not why it’s not redistribution. Just because you can come up with reasons why something MIGHT not work, does not meant that it will not work. Second, why are we changing all these variables at once? Who says that if we raise your taxes and lower somebody elses, that another damn thing needs to change. You’re trying to have a libertarian argument at the same time. And by the way – a mechanism that forces me as a defense contractor to pay my employee’s more:
Obama to raise minimum wage for government contract workers - The Washington Post

No you are wrong.. you just can't seem to understand why. You are making a leap that doesn't work. Yes.. you can create public sector work.. and that does put SOME dollars in public hands.. and puts a lot of dollars into the hands of the contractors that contract with the government. And there is not necessarily an increase in the demand for labor and raising wages.. because when you artificially raise wages that way.. then you end up driving US manufacturing further toward countries that have cheaper wages.
Yes.. it MIGHT be used for public sector employment.. it also might be used for subsidies for large companies.. it might be used for a myriad of things OTHER than on public sector employment. The point being that there taxing the rich DOES NOT mean that money is redistributed... if it did.. you would not have to qualify that it "might be" used for public employment.
Number one.. because taxing me higher does not mean that public sector work WILL be increased.. it MIGHT increase.. but it is not a natural consequence of higher taxes. Heck.. you could LOWER my taxes and increase the number of public sector jobs.

Again, changing multiple variables at the same time. This is simple economics. Labor is just like any other resource. If you create a bigger demand for it, prices will go up. This would include outsourced wages as well. Don’t like outsourcing? Then maybe we shouldn’t have trade agreements with countries with working standards that are well below ours – but that is another topic.
Second, you are arguing in absolutes and then in other places acknowledging the effectiveness “some dollars in public hands”, “not necessarily”. You seem to be looking for excuses.

Holy crap Batman.. you need to look at what you linked to.
Total average tax rate per income quintile...
1979 The lowest Quintile.. i.e. the poor paid and average of 7.5%
The highest paid 27.1%
That's a spread of 20% between the poor and the richest

In 2010 The lowest Quintile only paid 1.5%
The highest paid 24%
That's a spread of 22.5% between the poor and the richest.

That means that in 2010.. there is a greater difference between the rate the poor pay and the wealthy pay. That's more progressive. Heck.. the lowest Quintile is 1.5%...

We’ve been over this – I acknowledged your definition of “more progressive”, and clarified mine.

You just did.. you just proved that taxes aren't the problem, its wages.. and taxing me more isn't going to increase wages.

I seriously don’t know how to get you away from splitting hairs. Should we say “take home pay” instead?

And lets just see how well public employment works as a redistributor of wealth. Do you realize that government employees constitute only a small portion of the population? They are like 8% of the population.and that's ALL government employees not just Federal. How much do you think you need to increase employment to have any kind of effect? Double and its still only 16%.. Are you really going to sell that the answer is to multiply government employees to 50% of the working population? Cause that's what would have the effect that you want.
Again.. public sector employment accounts for 8%.. 8%.. if you double that its going to 16%.. DOUBLE all public sector employees.. and its so small a percentage that it would do almost nothing or nothing to put more money in the hands of MY employees. Increasing demand is nice.. it makes me richer.. increasing demand DOES NOT mean that I have to pay my employees MORE.
Secondly, public sector accounts for 8% of jobs.. and that's ALL government. Double that.. triple the size of government and you STILL are not having a major effect on the other 70% of employment.

Last time I checked the unemployment rate is only at 6%. I’m not exactly sure why were having fun with math and doing multiples of 8. Are you trying to argue that extreme scarcity won’t influence prices? Who said the government has to maximize it’s spending in pure terms of number jobs (ie only pay minimum wage in order to increase the percentage of government workers)?

 

[jaeger19]

It’s your prerogative to have such a narrow definition of “redistribution”. If I raise your taxes and collect 10 dollars and then lower 10 other peoples taxes so they get 1 more dollar, most people on this planet are going to call that “redistribution

”. Except since they didn't actually get my dollar but kept 1 dollar, its not redistribution. AS far as "most people" who are calling things redistribution. Most of them are tea partiers that in my experience so far.. don't have a clue.

But at the end of the day.. if you want to call the redistribution.. okay.. we can use yours. Most of my office staff don't pay income taxes because of their incomes versus their deductions. You can't tax them less than zero... so Taxing me more doesn't put money into their pockets... so again.. taxing me is a poor method of redistribution.

You’re just saying what I already said. There’s no point here. As far as your assertion, you keep pointing out that we have negative tax rates and then pointing out that we still have inequality as if there is nothing else to the story. I pointed out that even with negative tax rates, peoples income is still below what it was, which is an explanation of why your assertion is oversimplified.

Yes there is a point here... you just don't seem to understand what you are stating.

Let me try to break it down slowly.

We are debating whether raising taxes on the wealthy and decreasing taxes on the poor and middle class is an effective way to redistribute money. You think it is.. I say its not.

You admit that we already tax the wealthy way more than the poor and middle class.. in fact you admit that in cases we have negative tax rates. THEN you go on to admit that despite negative tax rates. The poor and middle class are not doing well.

Well.. YOU JUST MADE THE CASE AGAINST RAISING TAXES ON THE RICH AS A WAY TO REDISTRIBUTE MONEY.

First, you’re coming up with possible inefficiencies in the redistribution, not why it’s not redistribution. Just because you can come up with reasons why something MIGHT not work, does not meant that it will not work

Well, I can think of a lot of reasons why you should not jump out of an airplane at 2000 feet using your childhood "blankey" as a parachute... but you are right.. it might just work.

I'll tell you what.. if I come with a bunch of examples of why it doesn't work.. that might just mean that it doesn't work.. doncha think.

And by the way – a mechanism that forces me as a defense contractor to pay my employee’s more

Yes.. so?

That can be done without raising my taxes. And thats what we are talking about.. whether raising taxes on the rich is a good way to redistribute money.

Again, changing multiple variables at the same time. This is simple economics. Labor is just like any other resource. If you create a bigger demand for it, prices will go up. This would include outsourced wages as well. Don’t like outsourcing? Then maybe we shouldn’t have trade agreements with countries with working standards that are well below ours – but that is another topic.
Second, you are arguing in absolutes and then in other places acknowledging the effectiveness “some dollars in public hands”, “not necessarily”. You seem to be looking for excuses.

No offense but you are the one looking for an excuse. This debate was about whether RAISING TAXES ON THE RICH was an effective method of redistribution. I claimed it was not.. and you argued with me. NOW you are introducing multiple variables, NOT ME. Suddenly you are saying.. "well the money COULD be used for private sector work". You are introducing another variable independent of RAISING TAXES IN THE RICH.

See the point is.. raising taxes on the rich.. which is what liberals call for.. is obviously NOT a powerful method of redistribution IF.. it has to be qualified with .. "well then we could"...

I seriously don’t know how to get you away from splitting hairs. Should we say “take home pay” instead?

AGAIN.. AGAIN.. AGAIN... my office staff for the most part.. because of the Bush Tax cuts.. DON"T PAY INCOME TAX.... so taxing me more.. DOES NOT GIVE THEM BETTER WAGES OR MORE TAKE HOME PAY...

Why don't you understand it? You have admitted and been shown that currently the poor and middle class pay so less in taxes than they used to. Raising my taxes.. when they aren't paying taxes does not increase their take home pay. Heck,.. we have been trying that method for the last decade.. by lowering the poor and middle class taxes AND YET THE INCOME INEQUALITY HAS INCREASED NOT DECREASED.

This is proof that taxes and tax strategy ARE NOT.. good methods of redistribution and solving income inequality.

Last time I checked the unemployment rate is only at 6%. I’m not exactly sure why were having fun with math and doing multiples of 8. Are you trying to argue that extreme scarcity won’t influence prices? Who said the government has to maximize it’s spending in pure terms of number jobs (ie only pay minimum wage in order to increase the percentage of government workers)?

Then small number of government workers would not have an appreciable change in a workforce that makes up the rest of the 92 percent. In fact the wages of public employees is significantly higher ALREADY than the rest of the population per job category.. and guess what? INEQUALTIY OF WAGES has INCREASED.
So again.. your solution does not make any kind of logical sense.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yes you do have a personal responsibility to pay the debts that your country has amassed.. as you have benefited from that debt. You may choose to ignore that reality.. but its there.

I make well over 400K a year for your information.

And my position is exactly of a conservative.. Its not my fault that you don't know what a conservative believes in much less a communist or socialist.

That's BS

I only have a duty to pay my share and its no higher than yours or someone only making 10K a far.

 

[jaeger19]

That's BS

I only have a duty to pay my share and its no higher than yours or someone only making 10K a far.

Number one.. it is your duty and responsibility as an American.. and as a citizen. But we all understand your lack of personal responsibility.

Number two. Wealthy people control the government in this country and control the spending... and not coincidently benefit more from that spending than the guy making 10K dollars. He drives to work every day on a public road. And the owner of the shipping company he works for.. has heavy trucks going back and forth, hundreds of them every day on that same public road. Obviously the owner of the company is benefiting MORE than the employee when it comes to that road. Not to mention the hydro or nuclear power for the company. So on and so forth.

So it makes sense that the wealthy should pay more in tax. Just as I probably pay more tax than you.

 

[TurtleDude]

Number one.. it is your duty and responsibility as an American.. and as a citizen. But we all understand your lack of personal responsibility.

Number two. Wealthy people control the government in this country and control the spending... and not coincidently benefit more from that spending than the guy making 10K dollars. He drives to work every day on a public road. And the owner of the shipping company he works for.. has heavy trucks going back and forth, hundreds of them every day on that same public road. Obviously the owner of the company is benefiting MORE than the employee when it comes to that road. Not to mention the hydro or nuclear power for the company. So on and so forth.

So it makes sense that the wealthy should pay more in tax. Just as I probably pay more tax than you.

Your concept of personal responsibility is infantile and parasitic. You don't pay more taxes than I do and your claim about benefits is something you pulled out of your six.

for your moronic claim to have merit, you'd have to prove that the top 5% uses and BENEFITS more from government spending (that is funded by income and death taxes) than the other 95%

go ahead and try to argue that

 

[jaeger19]

Your concept of personal responsibility is infantile and parasitic. You don't pay more taxes than I do and your claim about benefits is something you pulled out of your six.

for your moronic claim to have merit, you'd have to prove that the top 5% uses and BENEFITS more from government spending (that is funded by income and death taxes) than the other 95%

go ahead and try to argue that

First of all.. you really have to realize that other people in this country actually make money in this country.. and its not all "daddy" and Grandads" money. You have no idea whether I pay more in taxes than you do. Quite frankly.. I suspect I do from your comments.

Secondly.. I have already made and proved the argument.. multiple times

I already gave you an example. the owner of the shipping company uses roads.. so to does his employee. The shipping company owner simply uses MORE of the road system since his business depends on trucking that sends thousands of pounds of truck multiple trucks, over multiple roads.. day in and day out..

And his employees drive to work and back in a little car.

The top 5% uses and benefit way from government than do the bottom 95%. Just like your family did from patent protection. ARe you going to claim that 95% of people have patents and need patent protection. ARE YOU... Go ahead and try.

 

[solletica]

Number one.. it is your duty and responsibility as an American..

There's no duty to pay taxes. Taxes are simply theft by the government, and unfortunately, it's extremely hard for the poor to avoid that theft.

 

[Tettsuo]

There's no duty to pay taxes. Taxes are simply theft by the government, and unfortunately, it's extremely hard for the poor to avoid that theft.

Ummm, no.

Taxes are the cost of civilization.

 

[voyager1]

That's BS

I only have a duty to pay my share and its no higher than yours or someone only making 10K a far.

Someone making $10,000 don't pay already.... So you feel you owe $0.00 then?

 

[voyager1]

Ummm, no.

Taxes are the cost of civilization.

I think the point they were making was the poor doesn't have the power legislative or otherwise to avoid taxes.

 

[Tettsuo]

I think the point they were making was the poor doesn't have the power legislative or otherwise to avoid taxes.

Also not true. The poor does have the power to legislate... it's called voting.

The problem is, the poor are told over and over again that they can't make a difference with their vote. So, they don't vote. 95% of the populace can easily make change in a democratic society.

 

[solletica]

Ummm, no.

Taxes are the cost of civilization.

No.

While it's true that a court system, enforcement of contracts, territorial defense, etc. (the stuff normally provided by a govt.) inevitably costs money, as long as funding for these efforts come from voluntary contributions, they don't count as taxes.

 

[solletica]

Also not true. The poor does have the power to legislate... it's called voting.

The power to change the system by voting is negated by the prevalence of stupid voters. As a result, suffrage confers no power, and the US is merely a plutocracy.

 

[jaeger19]

There's no duty to pay taxes. Taxes are simply theft by the government, and unfortunately, it's extremely hard for the poor to avoid that theft.

Yes there is a duty to pay taxes.. if you are a citizen and live in this country and you have the ability.. you have a duty to pay for the benefits otherwise then you are just a moocher.. taking from everyone else that does contribute.

 

[solletica]

Yes there is a duty to pay taxes.. if you are a citizen and live in this country and you have the ability.. you have a duty to pay for the benefits

Having an obligation to pay for sensible things is not equivalent to being required to pay taxes.

It's possible to fund sensible projects/programs through solely voluntary contributions, which are not taxes.

 

[solletica]

why is it that you think 39% should be the norm for all income even dividends that are often taxed twice.

you pay the same lower rates on capital gains as Buffett does.

Buffet doesn't pay taxes on all his capital gains, since he has multiple offshore accounts and shell companies whose gains and profits aren't taxed.

 

[jaeger19]

Having an obligation to pay for sensible things is not equivalent to being required to pay taxes.

It's possible to fund sensible projects/programs through solely voluntary contributions, which are not taxes.

Come now.. its not possible to fund projects through solely voluntary contributions.. because some.. would refuse to voluntarily contribute but would simply leech off others. That's why there are laws regarding taxation... to prevent folks like a certain few on this board who have no sense of personal responsibility and civic responsibility from leeching off of others.

 

[TurtleDude]

First of all.. you really have to realize that other people in this country actually make money in this country.. and its not all "daddy" and Grandads" money. You have no idea whether I pay more in taxes than you do. Quite frankly.. I suspect I do from your comments.

Secondly.. I have already made and proved the argument.. multiple times

I already gave you an example. the owner of the shipping company uses roads.. so to does his employee. The shipping company owner simply uses MORE of the road system since his business depends on trucking that sends thousands of pounds of truck multiple trucks, over multiple roads.. day in and day out..

And his employees drive to work and back in a little car.

The top 5% uses and benefit way from government than do the bottom 95%. Just like your family did from patent protection. ARe you going to claim that 95% of people have patents and need patent protection. ARE YOU... Go ahead and try.

You haven't proven anything. You make assumptions and offer an opinion that has no basis in fact.

The owner of the company pays lots in gasoline taxes which pay for the roads

so you are wrong

 

[TurtleDude]

Ummm, no.

Taxes are the cost of civilization.

yet lots of people who enjoy the benefits of civilization don't pay their share of the dues

 

[TurtleDude]

Someone making $10,000 don't pay already.... So you feel you owe $0.00 then?

I feel I owe my share of the government expenses

which is the cost of government divided by all the citizens. I suspect I pay far more than that share

 

[TurtleDude]

Buffet doesn't pay taxes on all his capital gains, since he has multiple offshore accounts and shell companies whose gains and profits aren't taxed.

and yet he still pays far more than say 90 millions combined. and whines he doesn't pay enough while manipulating the system to pay as little taxes as possible

 

[Hari Seldon]

Capital gains is not taxed twice; it's a tax only on the "gain," which was never taxed before. Dividends are taxed twice only if you include that it was taxed (maybe) by the issuing corporation and then taxed as income from the shareholder. So what? There are two problems with this argument. First, everyone pays double taxes all the time. Sales taxes, for example, are taxes on already-taxed income, import taxes, excise taxes, bridge tolls, car registration, taxes on alcohol, gasoline and tobacco are all double taxes. So are property taxes, which tax assets bought with already taxed income. So why should dividends enjoy a privileged other taxes do not?

Second, so many companies that issue dividends manage to wiggle out of paying any taxes at all. Thus, it's hard to say that it's double-taxation when the company never paid taxes in the first place.

Excellent points that don't get past the talking points. Particularly the double taxation nonsense. So many corporations don't even pay taxes for various reasons or have a very low effective rate.

 

[jaeger19]

You haven't proven anything. You make assumptions and offer an opinion that has no basis in fact.

The owner of the company pays lots in gasoline taxes which pay for the roads

so you are wrong

Sure I did.. gasoline taxes aren't the only funds that pay for roads.

He also pays for the federal government that protects interstate trade.. that maintains interstate road safety so on and so forth...

You are simply wrong.. and don't have a leg to stand on.