Who are the job creators?

[clevergirl]

If employers are being taxed too highly they lay off workers.

There is no real-world example of this happening, nor does it make economic sense despite your argument in favor of the idea. An employer hires the people it needs to hire to meet the demand for its products or services -- taxes or no taxes. If the employer lays off people that it needs to meet the demand for its products or services, then it will lose business, and no company willingly does that. On the other hand, if the employer hires people that it does NOT need to meet the demand for its products or services, say because a tax cut has put more capital in its bank account, then it is wasting money, and no company willingly does THAT, either.

Consumers are the real job creators. They're the ones we want to make sure have plenty of money. The rest will follow.

Researchers from the World Bank showed that higher corporate taxes are associated with lower rates of new business entry across countries. (This finding is particularly bad news for the United States, which the Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation found had the second highest corporate tax rate of the 30 countries its researchers examined.) And several studies show that countries with higher marginal personal income tax rates have lower rates of self-employment.

more

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Did anyone want to tell me whether or not the government is a job creator?

That's nice. But I'm less interested in a textbook definition as opposed to the reality of our current situation.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Consumers ALWAYS create the demand. Tell me one instance where there was a need for a product and someone didn't try to meet that need.

On the other hand, business sometimes creates the demand through innovation, but there are enough failed products that should tell you that business can't always create a demand.

You missed this post:

And sometimes the business creates the demand.

There was no demand for an ipod before it was invented. Once invented and made available the demand grew and jobs were created to meet the demand . . . that the business created.

Why is it 'either/or'? Seems to me it's a 'both'. Sometimes consumers create demand and sometimes business creates demand.

Huh? That's the post I replied to. You just quoted it. I'm beginning to feel like some of you aren't working with a full deck.

Yes and apparently you missed the point of my post, which is why I repeated it.

You claimed that consumers ALWAYS create the demand; I just showed you (twice) that isn't true.

 

[Dragon]

Doubtful: Why? The skill level in manufacturing jobs was higher than service sector jobs, therefore employers would offer more $, regardless of whether or not the worker was unionized.

First: the claim that manufacturing jobs require more skills than service jobs, on the average, is untrue. The highest-end manufacturing job is the operation of a modern robotized assembly, requiring high-tech skills including programming. A high-tech service technician, a computer network engineer, or even an auto mechanic requires at least equal technical skill, and a human resources manager or even a first-class salesperson requires at least the equivalent in people skills. I'm a freelance writer myself. That's a service profession. Do you really think it requires less skill than a typical factory worker? It requires different skills, certainly. A bottom-end manufacturing job requires little if any more skill than a burger-flipper.

Second: the claim that employers pay employees according to the skills required for the job is only true when speaking relatively, comparing one job to another within the same general area. In general, it is not true. A company pays its employees what it must, not what would reasonably judged to be fair.

Again, The formation of unions depends not on government support, but upon how much a strike will effect the employer. Service jobs simply do not require highly skilled workers. A hamburger-flipper can be easily replaced: A machine tool operator cannot.

As noted above, the claim that "service jobs simply do not require highly skilled workers" is nonsense. "Service jobs" is a broad category that includes some of the highest-skilled jobs we have. Further, the way you have phrase the above is obviously untrue. How much a strike will affect the employer is certainly a factor in whether unionization is possible, but so is government protection of the right to form a union. That was what changed in the 1930s that resulted in the unionization of the workplace, and that is what changed again in the 1970s-80s that resulted in the loss of union power.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yeah, it makes a lot of sense to compare the untouched Norwiegian Economy to the untouched post WWII US economy.

It makes better sense to compare the undamaged British economy or French economy or Dutch economy or Danish economy to the undamaged (but NOT untouched) post war U.S. economy. Or, better still, all of them together. Most of the world -- almost ALL of the world -- had the same industrial capacity coming out of the war that it had going into it, or better. Usually better. The "last man standing" idea is completely, totally false.

And calling me an "idiot" is not going to change the fact that you are wrong in that "whole world wiped out" nonsense. I find that people on this board are too quick to resort to personal insults when they don't have a good answer to an argument or evidence. It shows that the person who is making the insult is, in fact, the idiot.

France's industrial base was severely damaged as was that of Germany, Italy, and Japan. The U.K. less so but all the bombing had not had no effect. All, however, including those who escaped physical damage, prospered in the post WWII golden period that lasted from around 1950 through the early 1970's.

 

[Dragon]

Researchers from the World Bank showed that higher corporate taxes are associated with lower rates of new business entry across countries. (This finding is particularly bad news for the United States, which the Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation found had the second highest corporate tax rate of the 30 countries its researchers examined.) And several studies show that countries with higher marginal personal income tax rates have lower rates of self-employment.

more

I would need to do considerable study of your linked material to critique it properly. At first glance, it looks like purely an exercise in economic theory without any real-world data to support it. As such, it's not really a refutation of what I was saying.

As for your own post above, you have switched goalposts here. What you said earlier is that if taxes are too high, existing businesses will not hire. What you are saying now is that higher taxes discourage entrepreneurship. These are not the same claims.

In response to your new claim, I will point out that from 1940 to 1980 the top marginal income tax rates in the U.S. ranged from 70% to 92%. That was not accompanied by either low rates of hiring or low incidence of entrepreneurship.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Everyone likes to bring up the old days as proof for our high taxes vs our economy. Yet they leave out all the other factors such as our manufacturing base. It's comical.

 

[Mr Natural]

Researchers from the World Bank showed that higher corporate taxes are associated with lower rates of new business entry across countries. (This finding is particularly bad news for the United States, which the Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation found had the second highest corporate tax rate of the 30 countries its researchers examined.) And several studies show that countries with higher marginal personal income tax rates have lower rates of self-employment.

more

I would need to do considerable study of your linked material to critique it properly. At first glance, it looks like purely an exercise in economic theory without any real-world data to support it. As such, it's not really a refutation of what I was saying.

As for your own post above, you have switched goalposts here. What you said earlier is that if taxes are too high, existing businesses will not hire. What you are saying now is that higher taxes discourage entrepreneurship. These are not the same claims.

In response to your new claim, I will point out that from 1940 to 1980 the top marginal income tax rates in the U.S. ranged from 70% to 92%. That was not accompanied by either low rates of hiring or low incidence of entrepreneurship.

But it was accompanied by the greatest incidence of prosperity for the middle class.

 

[Samson]

I'm a freelance writer myself. That's a service profession. Do you really think it requires less skill than a typical factory worker?

Yes.

 

[Foxfyre]

Researchers from the World Bank showed that higher corporate taxes are associated with lower rates of new business entry across countries. (This finding is particularly bad news for the United States, which the Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation found had the second highest corporate tax rate of the 30 countries its researchers examined.) And several studies show that countries with higher marginal personal income tax rates have lower rates of self-employment.

more

I would need to do considerable study of your linked material to critique it properly. At first glance, it looks like purely an exercise in economic theory without any real-world data to support it. As such, it's not really a refutation of what I was saying.

As for your own post above, you have switched goalposts here. What you said earlier is that if taxes are too high, existing businesses will not hire. What you are saying now is that higher taxes discourage entrepreneurship. These are not the same claims.

In response to your new claim, I will point out that from 1940 to 1980 the top marginal income tax rates in the U.S. ranged from 70% to 92%. That was not accompanied by either low rates of hiring or low incidence of entrepreneurship.

But it was accompanied by the greatest incidence of prosperity for the middle class.

Those 'high marginal income tax rates' are also a distortion when looked at without mitigating factors such as many tax credits, deductions, and loopholes that were available then but do not exist today.

 

[Gordy]

The problem is the unequal flow of money.Right now the solution being proposed is to tax the money @ the top and shove it to the bottom.(somebody else fix the problem for you). The real solution is to dump this idea of working for a wage or salary and the American worker get payed for a % of what he does. (empower indivduals to fix this situation)The only arguments I can find against this are all fear based.As long as the American worker is working for a dollar amount our income can always be manipulated through inflation ,hidden taxes,and numerous other ways.Try asking the goverment or your employer to work for a set dollar amount!!

 

[Full-Auto]

The problem is the unequal flow of money.Right now the solution being proposed is to tax the money @ the top and shove it to the bottom.(somebody else fix the problem for you). The real solution is to dump this idea of working for a wage or salary and the American worker get payed for a % of what he does. (empower indivduals to fix this situation)The only arguments I can find against this are all fear based.

Workers are paid a percentage. Sometimes thats salary, sometimes hourly. It remains a percentage.

 

[Dragon]

France's industrial base was severely damaged as was that of Germany, Italy, and Japan. The U.K. less so but all the bombing had not had no effect.

I understand what you're saying and why you're saying it but, with the already-noted exceptions of Germany and Japan, you are stating falsehood.

It's not that the German bombing "had no effect," but that it has so little effect on British industry that British industry expanded during the war. One could argue that it would have expanded more in net effect if German bombs had not been falling at all, and that is almost certainly true. However, the fact remains that British industrial capacity at the end of the war was greater than when the war started. The claim that it was "flattened" by the war, which must be true if that explanation for U.S. postwar prosperity is to be explained in this way, is clearly and demonstrably false.

As for French industry, I suggest reviewing the actual military events of 1940. Battle of France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Germans did not engage in sustained bombing or artillery barrages, and particularly not in strategic bombing of the kind they later attempted (unsuccessfully) in Britain, and that the Allies used against Germany herself. Instead, the Germans fought successfully a war of maneuver relying or rapid motion, breakthroughs, and exploitation. Some damage occurred in the Allied bombardment prior to D-Day, but as with British industry, French industry expanded during the war.

The same is true of most other combatants. Only the Germans and Japanese emerged from the war with lower industrial capacity than they had going in. Even for them, it was quickly rebuilt.

All, however, including those who escaped physical damage, prospered in the post WWII golden period that lasted from around 1950 through the early 1970's.

That is true. And so it is not true that the U.S. prosperity coincided with the ruin of the rest of the world.

 

[Dragon]

Those 'high marginal income tax rates' are also a distortion when looked at without mitigating factors such as many tax credits, deductions, and loopholes that were available then but do not exist today.

This is true, but what is also true is that, even with those deductions etc., the tax system was more progressive than it is today. Many (although unfortunately not all) of the "loopholes" were actually operating as designed, to channel capital into productive investment. It was generally possible for people to avoid paying the top marginal rate by doing something that would benefit the economy with one's money rather than hanging onto it.

 

[Dragon]

I'm a freelance writer myself. That's a service profession. Do you really think it requires less skill than a typical factory worker?

Yes.

Good grief. If you really think that, it's "don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up." Have a nice day.

 

[Dragon]

Everyone likes to bring up the old days as proof for our high taxes vs our economy. Yet they leave out all the other factors such as our manufacturing base. It's comical.

Manufacturing output today in the U.S. is higher than it was in the 1960s.

 

[Samson]

I'm a freelance writer myself. That's a service profession. Do you really think it requires less skill than a typical factory worker?

Yes.

Good grief. If you really think that, it's "don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up." Have a nice day.

My 15 year old son could claim to be a "freelance writer."

 

[Gordy]

The problem is the unequal flow of money.Right now the solution being proposed is to tax the money @ the top and shove it to the bottom.(somebody else fix the problem for you). The real solution is to dump this idea of working for a wage or salary and the American worker get payed for a % of what he does. (empower indivduals to fix this situation)The only arguments I can find against this are all fear based.

Workers are paid a percentage. Sometimes thats salary, sometimes hourly. It remains a percentage.

When its an hourly rate or salary the % amount can easily be manipulated instead of being locked in directly to the cost of goods.

 

[Dragon]

My 15 year old son could claim to be a "freelance writer."

Could he actually make a living at it? (If he's actually writing, encourage him to keep at it.)

Lawyers and doctors are also service workers, if those occupations don't engage your prejudices to the same degree. Or you might also look over all of what I posted, instead of cherry-picking something. Just a thought.

 

[Foxfyre]

The problem is the unequal flow of money.Right now the solution being proposed is to tax the money @ the top and shove it to the bottom.(somebody else fix the problem for you). The real solution is to dump this idea of working for a wage or salary and the American worker get payed for a % of what he does. (empower indivduals to fix this situation)The only arguments I can find against this are all fear based.

Workers are paid a percentage. Sometimes thats salary, sometimes hourly. It remains a percentage.

When its an hourly rate or salary the % amount can easily be manipulated instead of being locked in directly to the cost of goods.

It doesn't matter, however, whether the worker is paid a salary, an hourly wage, a piece rate, a commission, or something is bartered, unless donated, labor is a cost of doing business.