Boss
Take a Memo:
Our money? Why do you think you're entitled to someone else's wealth? It's not your money, it's their money.Perhaps I should have said keep more of our money.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Our money? Why do you think you're entitled to someone else's wealth? It's not your money, it's their money.Perhaps I should have said keep more of our money.
OK, I'll grant you that...using 'stocks' was a poor choice on my part.So, why not encourage the money towards investment in job-creating businesses rather than in purely money-making instruments where no jobs are created?Jobs are created when the market demands require themWell I guess you thought wrong. Jobs are created when the market demands require them. It's easier for them to be created when money is plentiful and abundant. Wealthy people have no need to create or do anything... that's one of the advantages of being wealthy. They don't need to earn incomes because they've already earned them. So whenever you tax high incomes they simply stop earning high incomes and sock away their wealth in securities and shelters. This means it's not available for less-wealthy entrepreneurs to use in expanding businesses and creating new jobs, it's also not available to stimulate the market which drives the demand for new jobs.
There is no tax burden on wealthy people. They've already paid their taxes when they earned their wealth. We don't have a national wealth tax in America. We have an income tax. Taxing higher incomes is not taxing wealthy people. Mostly, it's taxing small businesses who file as individuals on their tax returns. So, not only are you creating a condition where less rich people money is available, you are also increasing the tax burden of the less-wealthy.
When you reduce the tax rates on the top marginal income earners and decrease the capital gains taxes, you create a positive cash flow which stimulates the market and increases the demand for new jobs. There is money available because you've lowered the cap gains tax and therefore, new jobs abound.
Well, since you're saying that Supply Side Economics doesn't work wouldn't it be better if the wealth was more spread around so that it goes around and creates demand which in turn creates jobs?
It's scary how little understanding some of you people have about what creates jobs! Let me try to explain it to you once again. New businesses are created or existing ones are expanded because someone sees the potential to make a profit. Demand, while part of the equation does not in and of itself create jobs! There would be huge demand for a Corvette that sold for ten thousand dollars. They'd sell like hot cakes! So why doesn't Chevy sell their Corvettes for that amount and take advantage of such a huge demand? It's obvious...they would lose money because there is no profit to be made selling a Corvette for that amount.
Jobs are created when people with capital see an opportunity to take in a large enough profit creating a product or providing a service that it makes sense for them to risk said capital. When you raise taxes on profits...you dampen the expectations of making a profit and make taking the risk less inviting.
With all due respect, IDB...the stock market DOES encourage capital to be used in job creation!
The point I was trying to make was that having money working in investment instruments that do nothing but make more money is of no advantage to anyone but the owner of the capital - and certainly doesn't create the downstream benefits that entrepreneurial investment does.
Their answer is to attempt to seize capital from the wealthy by taxing profits and then redistributing it to the poor through government a concept which is doomed for failure because the wealthy are not going to allow their capital to be taken from them without a fight.
Supply Side is a DISASTER.
That's why we need Ricardian Free Trade.
[
Well I guess you thought wrong. Jobs are created when the market demands require them.
It's easier for them to be created when money is plentiful and abundant. Wealthy people have no need to create or do anything... that's one of the advantages of being wealthy. They don't need to earn incomes because they've already earned them. So whenever you tax high incomes they simply stop earning high incomes and sock away their wealth in securities and shelters. This means it's not available for less-wealthy entrepreneurs to use in expanding businesses and creating new jobs, it's also not available to stimulate the market which drives the demand for new jobs.
There is no tax burden on wealthy people. They've already paid their taxes when they earned their wealth. We don't have a national wealth tax in America. We have an income tax.
Taxing higher incomes is not taxing wealthy people. Mostly, it's taxing small businesses who file as individuals on their tax returns. So, not only are you creating a condition where less rich people money is available, you are also increasing the tax burden of the less-wealthy.
When you reduce the tax rates on the top marginal income earners and decrease the capital gains taxes, you create a positive cash flow which stimulates the market and increases the demand for new jobs. There is money available because you've lowered the cap gains tax and therefore, new jobs abound.
It must be a good thing to have the money in circulation creating work though - rather than locked away in a bank or in stocks...don't you think?I dunno.Jobs are created when the market demands require themWell I guess you thought wrong. Jobs are created when the market demands require them. It's easier for them to be created when money is plentiful and abundant. Wealthy people have no need to create or do anything... that's one of the advantages of being wealthy. They don't need to earn incomes because they've already earned them. So whenever you tax high incomes they simply stop earning high incomes and sock away their wealth in securities and shelters. This means it's not available for less-wealthy entrepreneurs to use in expanding businesses and creating new jobs, it's also not available to stimulate the market which drives the demand for new jobs.
There is no tax burden on wealthy people. They've already paid their taxes when they earned their wealth. We don't have a national wealth tax in America. We have an income tax. Taxing higher incomes is not taxing wealthy people. Mostly, it's taxing small businesses who file as individuals on their tax returns. So, not only are you creating a condition where less rich people money is available, you are also increasing the tax burden of the less-wealthy.
When you reduce the tax rates on the top marginal income earners and decrease the capital gains taxes, you create a positive cash flow which stimulates the market and increases the demand for new jobs. There is money available because you've lowered the cap gains tax and therefore, new jobs abound.
Well, since you're saying that Supply Side Economics doesn't work wouldn't it be better if the wealth was more spread around so that it goes around and creates demand which in turn creates jobs?
How would we do that?
Just as a starting point should we agree it's a good idea in theory though?
Then we could brainstorm on how it could be done!
I think people has for ages , all I can figure out is either 3 basic things either kings/dictators get all the money or government gets all the money or in our case entrepreneurs get all the money.
Jobs are created when the market demands require them
Well, since you're saying that Supply Side Economics doesn't work wouldn't it be better if the wealth was more spread around so that it goes around and creates demand which in turn creates jobs?
I think trickle down can, given the right circumstances, work. I do not see right now as being imbued with those circumstances.
I don't know if anyone remembers this, but..................
Remember when Jr. first decided to cut taxes for the wealthy? There was some doubt about it, and that is why the tax cuts were to be tried out for only 10 years.
Well.................the 10 year time limit came, and they decided to extend them, even though it had been proven that tax cuts for the wealthy did nothing to help the economy.
I say return to the Clinton era tax code.
So, in 2003 jobs designing the iPhone were created because of the intense demand for the device?
In 2009, the same was true for the iPad?
So generally, a wealthy person who owns stock or a majority share of a business venture will pull out their personal checkbook and write a check for expenses?
We also have business taxes,. corporate income taxes (the highest in the world) and Capital Gains taxes to hit the returns on investment.
I'm not sure what point you are attempting make, since you are mixing apples and hot air balloons. We tax higher incomes and use a Marxian graduated tax to tax those are a higher percentage than we tax lower incomes. As is always the case with confiscatory schemes. corruption enters the equation. Our tax code is and has been for sale to the highest bidder. That said, to claim that the burden on less wealthy is higher is patently absurd, and frankly ignorant.
"Give the rich more money and they will create jobs."
We have seen the income and wealth at the top skyrocket in the last few decades.
If that old canard was true we should be up to our ears in jobs.
I assume you are trying to apply Keynesian stimulus to reduced taxes. It doesn't work and exposes your lack of grasp of macro economic theory.
Not for what they pay their workers.Supply Side is a DISASTER.
That's why we need Ricardian Free Trade.
You clearly have no grasp what Ricardian economics entails.
Off shoring to China is the heart of Ricardian theory.
____________
Ricardian Model of Trade - International Political Economy
No... Sometimes, jobs are created out of a free enterprise entrepreneur's speculations of a vision. Another great example would be Henry Ford. It's a great argument for why we should embrace policies which free up venture capital controlled by the wealthy. Imagine if Steve Jobs had been unable to get the capital to put his invention into production?
The reason I stated that jobs are created when the market demands them is because, generally speaking, that is true. For every Steve Jobs there are a thousand inventors who's ideas failed.
What is the problem with liberals today, contorting everything I say into some warped little pretzel and spewing it back in my face? I didn't say that. If they own stock, they've already pulled out their checkbook.
Right... And whenever you raise ANY of those taxes you'll get less of the behavior you're taxing! A super-wealthy person can simply put their wealth into tax-free municipals where you can't touch it. They don't get much of a return but that's okay, they're rich... they don't need it. Now you're not ever going to start taxing municipal bonds or you'll have a nation full of dilapidated cities with crumbling infrastructures to contend with. And all that rich people money will be safe in a Swiss bank account, far from your grubby little hands.
Well, I thought my point was very simple. Wealthy people have no need to earn incomes.
The top marginal income earners are generally not the super-wealthy. They're trying to get there... running their small businesses and striving to acquire wealth. So you're not "taxing the rich" when you raise the top marginal income tax rates, you're taxing small businesses for the most part, and those who are trying to become rich.
And yes... I agree, there is corruption and collusion all in our tax codes and throughout our government in it's massive bureaucratic regulations and red tape. That's why I constantly tell Millennials who get all worked up about Walmart and Big Corporations... you're barking at the wrong enemy. The free market system takes care of the greedy capitalist... there's no such thing as "too big to fail" ...it's the Big Government you should be barking at.... THAT is the problem, not the capitalists.
I don't know know why you think I'd try to apply Keynesian anything to anything... Keynes was an idiot in my opinion. I'm always in favor of lower taxes... always. I'd love to repeal the 16th Amendment and convert to a consumption tax to pay for government. But the bottom line is, the situation is going to take care of itself eventually... we cannot continue to sustain trillion-dollar deficits year after year. Sooner or later, it all comes crashing down.
[
Not for what they pay their workers.
And the US is NOT competitive in the relationship.
What do we do for China excert eliminate our workforce.
Try better.
It's interesting to note that Jobs never invented anything. Jobs was a master of marketing.
Then the process of creating a capital budget would be absolutely no different than for a smaller business, simply on a different scale. My point is that your claim was entirely absurd. Regardless of size, a capital budget must be prepared that details the ROCE prior to committing capital.
You are again confused;
Municipal Bonds can be Subject to Capital Gains Tax
Apparently most of them disagree with you, since even Warren Buffet is pulling in an income from investments.
Income taxes are designed to put a boot to the face of those climbing the ladder of success. If that is the point you're trying to make, I agree.
My doctorate is in supply and production chain management, Sam Walton created supply chain management, it simply did not exist as a discipline prior to him. He is one of the preeminent geniuses of out era.Steve Jobs was a glorified huckster, he could stir up a crowd, but never created anything, not even new concepts or processes.
Sam Walton though, he revolutionized the world. Business school staples such as upstream and downsteam flow, available to promise, dock to stock,. these are all concepts that arose because of the vision of Walton to view the entire supply chain in a holistic manner, and manage every aspect of it. Supplier score cards are a Walton invention.
You are unlikely to hear negative statements regarding Walmart from me.
The way you phrased your post made it appear that you were touting the stimulus benefits of tax cuts.
I agree on consumption taxes, BTW.
You also need to admit that she is right about the vital importance of strengthening the middle class. Consumer spending is the key to economic growth - not the hope that more investment is on the horizon if you cut the taxes on the top 1%.
Giving tax breaks to the top earners and corporations has been proven time and time again to be a poor stimulator of economic growth. Sure the idea sounds rational on paper, but put into practice it's a failure. Why? Because these top earners just keep the money they save rather than invest it. Investing is no longer a priority for them if they are already richer now than ever before. Corporate profits are also at an all time high. Moreover, more investment in supply is pointless if there isn't a level of demand to match it.
Bush's tax cuts for instance were deficit-creating nightmares. Job growth under Bush was pathetic and we had a Great Recession begin on his watch.
Kansas cut taxes on top earners and the state now has a huge deficit and a recession.