The Rich Don't Create Jobs

[Oldstyle]

No, business people ANTICIPATING demand is what creates jobs. Demand can exist but if nobody responds to that demand by creating goods or providing services then quite obviously no job will be created.

Yes, but in practical reality the response to demand can be taken for granted provided the demand exists. The demand cannot. It depends on widespread dispersal of wealth through one mechanism or another -- in a capitalist economy the usual mechanism is high wages for work. Drive up wages, you will create more demand, and there will be more investment and more job creation.

More money to the rich does NOT create jobs.

More money to the middle class and poor DOES create jobs.

It's that simple.

So when you raise taxes on the wealthy and they make a decision to invest elsewhere? How does that help your middle and lower classes? They've lost their job and the revenue that you've promised would be "dispersed" is now no longer being generated.

 

[NYcarbineer]

OK, so every cut was followed by prosperity but we can't attribute causality to it. This is because we attribute its cause to something else.
You have contradicted yourself grandly, in addition to spewing misinformation gleaned from leftist sources no doubt.

No you can't. The two biggest tax increases in the last 30 years were 1982 and 1993,

and both were followed by prosperity.

 

[Intense]

[Sorry, I fail to accept this person's "theory" that consumers are job creators and that the jobs will somehow magically appear to meet demand.

So jobs in the housing industry, for example, don't rise or fall based on consumer demand for new houses, or remodels/improvements/repairs,

and disposal income of those consumers, most of whom are not 'rich', doesn't matter?

Exactly, when HUD, FHA, Fannie, and Freddie are running things. Bingo! Welcome to the mess we are in because of that Lame Ass Reasoning.

You nailed it.

 

[Dragon]

So when you raise taxes on the wealthy and they make a decision to invest elsewhere?

There is no evidence of this happening. Investing elsewhere is happening because of dirt-cheap labor costs abroad. Compared to that, taxes are a pittance.

Also, if there is no demand, they won't be investing ANYWHERE.

 

[Oldstyle]

The problem with progressive fiscal policy is that you guys want to remove much of the potential profit an investor might recoup from starting up a business

Not true. Even if we were to return to the confiscatory top marginal tax rates of the 1950s, they would apply only to incomes above $1.6 million per year (if the bracket is set at the same point in constant dollars). A small business is not started to rake in profits like that, although it may ultimately happen. At the level of profits of most new businesses, taxes would be very low.

Proposals currently on the table would raise taxes on the rich only a few percentage points. Most small business owners wouldn't be affected at all, and those who were, would certainly not lose "much of the potential profit."

So you're saying that your policies wouldn't affect small business owners? What about the small business owner that would like to become a big business owner? You know...the one who wants to expand from a few hundred workers to thousands? The one that's trying to take that next step? Think "they" are going to take that risk if you step all over their potential profit with your "only a few percentage points" tax?

 

[Oldstyle]

So when you raise taxes on the wealthy and they make a decision to invest elsewhere?

There is no evidence of this happening. Investing elsewhere is happening because of dirt-cheap labor costs abroad. Compared to that, taxes are a pittance.

Also, if there is no demand, they won't be investing ANYWHERE.

Make up your mind...you say it isn't happening...but then you say it's happening because of lower costs elsewhere.

So let's raise the cost of doing business here! That will stem the flow of jobs overseas...right? (eye-roll)

 

[Dragon]

Make up your mind...you say it isn't happening...but then you say it's happening because of lower costs elsewhere.

I'm saying that businesses moving elsewhere because of tax increases isn't happening, or anyway there's no evidence of it. And there is evidence to the contrary; as was pointed out above, prosperity has historically followed from tax increases. There are other historical examples, too: the highest economic performance in our nation's entire history occurred in the decades following World War II, when taxes on the rich were at extremely high levels.

 

[Oldstyle]

Make up your mind...you say it isn't happening...but then you say it's happening because of lower costs elsewhere.

I'm saying that businesses moving elsewhere because of tax increases isn't happening, or anyway there's no evidence of it. And there is evidence to the contrary; as was pointed out above, prosperity has historically followed from tax increases. There are other historical examples, too: the highest economic performance in our nation's entire history occurred in the decades following World War II, when taxes on the rich were at extremely high levels.

So you're saying that in the global economy we now have...that jobs have not left the US for other locations? Really, Dragon?

People like you think the American economy exists in a vaccum and that we can somehow bring back the high wage union jobs that we've lost by taxing the wealthy and creating demand by giving it to everyone else. Does the story about the goose that laid the golden egg ring a bell with you?

 

[bripat9643]

OK, so every cut was followed by prosperity but we can't attribute causality to it. This is because we attribute its cause to something else.
You have contradicted yourself grandly, in addition to spewing misinformation gleaned from leftist sources no doubt.

No you can't. The two biggest tax increases in the last 30 years were 1982 and 1993,

and both were followed by prosperity.

ROFL! A recession followed immediately after each 1993. Why do you supposed George Bush didn't get reelected? Taxes were still much lower after 1982 then the were before 1981. Libturds keep ignoring the huge tax cut in 1981 whenever they start talking about the minor pull back in 1982 demanded by the Congressional Dims.

 

[RDD_1210]

No, business people ANTICIPATING demand is what creates jobs. Demand can exist but if nobody responds to that demand by creating goods or providing services then quite obviously no job will be created.

You can prove this to be true simply by looking at all of the businesses that open and consequently fail because demand DIDN'T exist. It is the ANTICIPATION of demand and the ANTICIPATION of profit that causes businesses to be created and jobs to follow.

So demand is the ultimate decider of a successful business? You're saying it yourself, yet you can't understand it. Amazing really.

Demand is a key component but once again...if nobody anticipates demand and provides a good or service to meet it...then no job is created. It is the anticipation of demand and the expectation of profit (especially the latter) that drives investment.

So which scenario do you think is more likely to spur spending? Having 10,000,000 customers ready and willing to buy or 10,000,000 dollars to invest in a company with no customers?

Demand is THE key factor. If there is a demand, any insightful person can recognize that demand and figure out a way to meet it.

The opposite is not true however, there are plenty of businesses with plenty of capital that simply failed because there was not enough consumer demand.

Demand is THE key factor.

 

[Oldstyle]

So demand is the ultimate decider of a successful business? You're saying it yourself, yet you can't understand it. Amazing really.

Demand is a key component but once again...if nobody anticipates demand and provides a good or service to meet it...then no job is created. It is the anticipation of demand and the expectation of profit (especially the latter) that drives investment.

So which scenario do you think is more likely to spur spending? Having 10,000,000 customers ready and willing to buy or 10,000,000 dollars to invest in a company with no customers?

Demand is THE key factor. If there is a demand, any insightful person can recognize that demand and figure out a way to meet it.

The opposite is not true however, there are plenty of businesses with plenty of capital that simply failed because there was not enough consumer demand.

Demand is THE key factor.

This is a what came first...the chicken or the egg...discussion.

My point remains that jobs are only created when a business person anticipates demand and profit. Without that anticipation you don't get investment. Without that investment you don't get goods or services. When you decrease the amount of profit that an investor is going to be able to recoup from risking their capital then you decrease the number of investors who are going to be willing to make that risk.

What I find amusing is all the liberals here who can't seem to grasp that last concept...

 

[Oldstyle]

Your "solution" to high unemployment is to impose higher taxes on the people who have capital to invest and impose more restrictions and regulations on any business that they potentially would want to open...then you scratch your heads and ask why it is that the wealthy are "sitting on" their money.

 

[NYcarbineer]

OK, so every cut was followed by prosperity but we can't attribute causality to it. This is because we attribute its cause to something else.
You have contradicted yourself grandly, in addition to spewing misinformation gleaned from leftist sources no doubt.

No you can't. The two biggest tax increases in the last 30 years were 1982 and 1993,

and both were followed by prosperity.

ROFL! A recession followed immediately after each 1993. Why do you supposed George Bush didn't get reelected? Taxes were still much lower after 1982 then the were before 1981. Libturds keep ignoring the huge tax cut in 1981 whenever they start talking about the minor pull back in 1982 demanded by the Congressional Dims.

You're an idiot.

1. The 1982 tax increase occurred near the end of the 81-82 recession. The next recession wasn't until 1990.

2. The 1993 tax increase wasn't followed by a recession until 2001.

3. Yes, the 1982 tax increase was only a partial rollback of the amount of the 1981 tax cut,

BUT, so would have been an extension of only some of the Bush tax cuts.

 

[RDD_1210]

Demand is a key component but once again...if nobody anticipates demand and provides a good or service to meet it...then no job is created. It is the anticipation of demand and the expectation of profit (especially the latter) that drives investment.

So which scenario do you think is more likely to spur spending? Having 10,000,000 customers ready and willing to buy or 10,000,000 dollars to invest in a company with no customers?

Demand is THE key factor. If there is a demand, any insightful person can recognize that demand and figure out a way to meet it.

The opposite is not true however, there are plenty of businesses with plenty of capital that simply failed because there was not enough consumer demand.

Demand is THE key factor.

This is a what came first...the chicken or the egg...discussion.

My point remains that jobs are only created when a business person anticipates demand and profit. Without that anticipation you don't get investment. Without that investment you don't get goods or services. When you decrease the amount of profit that an investor is going to be able to recoup from risking their capital then you decrease the number of investors who are going to be willing to make that risk.

What I find amusing is all the liberals here who can't seem to grasp that last concept...

Actually, this is not that at all. Demand is always the key factor. Your own wording alludes to it. The business person in your example can only create a business when there is demand for something. If there is no demand, there is no business, there are no jobs.

What I find amusing is all the conservatives here who can't seem to grasp that last concept...

 

[Oldstyle]

So which scenario do you think is more likely to spur spending? Having 10,000,000 customers ready and willing to buy or 10,000,000 dollars to invest in a company with no customers?

Demand is THE key factor. If there is a demand, any insightful person can recognize that demand and figure out a way to meet it.

The opposite is not true however, there are plenty of businesses with plenty of capital that simply failed because there was not enough consumer demand.

Demand is THE key factor.

This is a what came first...the chicken or the egg...discussion.

My point remains that jobs are only created when a business person anticipates demand and profit. Without that anticipation you don't get investment. Without that investment you don't get goods or services. When you decrease the amount of profit that an investor is going to be able to recoup from risking their capital then you decrease the number of investors who are going to be willing to make that risk.

What I find amusing is all the liberals here who can't seem to grasp that last concept...

Actually, this is not that at all. Demand is always the key factor. Your own wording alludes to it. The business person in your example can only create a business when there is demand for something. If there is no demand, there is no business, there are no jobs.

What I find amusing is all the conservatives here who can't seem to grasp that last concept...

That's not neccessarily true. There are businesses created every day on the assumption of a demand that isn't neccessarily there. Solyndra is a perfect example of that. Investors created a company and many jobs because they anticipated a demand for a certain type of solar panel. They miscalculated. Still it was the "anticipation" of demand that caused Solyndra to be created.

 

[RDD_1210]

This is a what came first...the chicken or the egg...discussion.

My point remains that jobs are only created when a business person anticipates demand and profit. Without that anticipation you don't get investment. Without that investment you don't get goods or services. When you decrease the amount of profit that an investor is going to be able to recoup from risking their capital then you decrease the number of investors who are going to be willing to make that risk.

What I find amusing is all the liberals here who can't seem to grasp that last concept...

Actually, this is not that at all. Demand is always the key factor. Your own wording alludes to it. The business person in your example can only create a business when there is demand for something. If there is no demand, there is no business, there are no jobs.

What I find amusing is all the conservatives here who can't seem to grasp that last concept...

That's not neccessarily true. There are businesses created every day on the assumption of a demand that isn't neccessarily there. Solyndra is a perfect example of that. Investors created a company and many jobs because they anticipated a demand for a certain type of solar panel. They miscalculated. Still it was the "anticipation" of demand that caused Solyndra to be created.

LOL, right. And what determined the actual success? Keep going with your reasoning. I'm not arguing that business is created on speculation. Like I said, business fails all the time. Which ones succeed......the ones with consumer demand to support them.

 

[Dragon]

So you're saying that in the global economy we now have...that jobs have not left the US for other locations? Really, Dragon?

I seriously suspect that you know how to read and are being disingenuous here, but once again: I am saying that jobs have not left the US for other locations BECAUSE OF TAXES. Comprende? Care to be honest about it if you do?

 

[Dragon]

This is a what came first...the chicken or the egg...discussion.

No, it's a "which can you take for granted and which requires attention" discussion.

 

[bripat9643]

Make up your mind...you say it isn't happening...but then you say it's happening because of lower costs elsewhere.

I'm saying that businesses moving elsewhere because of tax increases isn't happening, or anyway there's no evidence of it. And there is evidence to the contrary; as was pointed out above, prosperity has historically followed from tax increases.

Historically, prosperity has followed from tax cuts. However, as I have pointed out numerous times, you can't prove economic theorems using historical data. Empirical methods are only valid when you can isolate the variable, and you can never do that with historical data. Each moment in history is unique with thousands, if not millions, of variables affecting what happens at any given moment.

There are other historical examples, too: the highest economic performance in our nation's entire history occurred in the decades following World War II, when taxes on the rich were at extremely high levels.

As I have already pointed out several times, that prosperity was the result of bombing the rest of the industrialized world into the stone age.

 

[Dragon]

That's not neccessarily true. There are businesses created every day on the assumption of a demand that isn't neccessarily there.

Demand equals the fusion of two things: desire to buy and ability to buy. When introducing a new product, or even a new business trying to take market share from existing businesses around an old product, desire to buy is speculative, but ability to buy is not. Either it exists or it does not. Where it does, investors are more likely to take risks on new products which may or may not be desired. Where it does not, investors are more likely to wait until it does.

Take television for example. The technology for TV was fully developed by the late 1920s, but in the U.S. it was not introduced commercially until the late 1940s. Why? Because the Great Depression so greatly reduced the ability of people to buy that the risk was judged too great. (And afterwards came World War II, which diverted most of our industrial production into the war effort.) So it was introduced in the next period of relative prosperity.

Similarly, the mass-market auto and radio were introduced in the 1920s boom, commercial plastics in the 1950s, audio tapes and stereo in the 1960s, personal computers in the 1980s, and Internet commerce in the 1990s.

Whether you're talking about expanding an existing business or introducing a new and speculative product, broadly shared prosperity prompts more investment, while intense concentration of wealth does the opposite.

More money to the rich does NOT create jobs.

More money to the middle class and poor DOES create jobs.