The Rich Don't Create Jobs

[Dragon]

The government can create jobs in the sames sense that I can win the lottery.

No, it can create jobs the same way a business can create jobs: by investing money. The fact that the money in the government's case comes from taxes while in the business' case it comes (ultimately) from customers makes a difference but does not change the fact that a job is created.

Jobs produces goods and services that people actually want.

You mean like good roads and bridges, education, safe streets, protection from foreign enemies, clean air and water, safe working places, that sort of thing? Think people actually want all that? I'd say they do.

All you're saying is that useless ticks don't have a big enough claim on the output of the productive.

No, I'm saying the productive -- the REAL productive, which means people who work -- don't have a big enough claim on their OWN output. Too much of it is going to the owning class.

How is taking money by force from the people who earned it "more fair?"

I'm not talking about taking money from people who EARNED it. I'm talking about taking it from people who OWN it, and giving it TO people who earned it.

 

[Oldstyle]

Straight from the horses mouth. A multi-millionaire describing how backwards it is to give the rich tax breaks to create jobs. It's a terrible idea that has never been shown to work anywhere but the parrots continue to refer to it.

Raise Taxes on Rich to Reward True Job Creators: Nick Hanauer - Businessweek

"That’s why I can say with confidence that rich people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is the feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion a virtuous cycle that allows companies to survive and thrive and business owners to hire. An ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than I ever have been or ever will be."


Bonus points to the first idiot who says, "nothing is stopping him from sending more money to the government".

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. Jobs are created when a business person makes a calculation that their product or service will be in demand if they start up a company because they can do it better or cheaper than the competition. This is a man who invests in the start up of companies like Amazon yet doesn't seem to understand that without his investment companies like that might very well never get off the ground or experience the level of growth they have.

 

[Dragon]

OK, so every cut was followed by prosperity but we can't attribute causality to it.

Actually, only two of the four you mentioned were followed by prosperity. Reagan's and Bush's were not. So you don't even have correlation, let alone causation. Might as well be flipping a coin.

 

[eflatminor]

...how backwards it is to give the rich tax breaks

Then you're for a flat tax? Great!

 

[Dragon]

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.

You say "magically," and then you go on to show exactly how it works:

Jobs are created when a business person makes a calculation that their product or service will be in demand if they start up a company

And there you go. The products or services have to be in demand. Customers create jobs.

 

[Truthseeker420]

I have no idea what you are talking about.
Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush all cut marginal tax rates and the economy responded as people took advantage of the incentives to work more and earn more. That is just fact, jack.

They responded as Reagan opened up the government check book started the credit card boom.

Obama's deficiits are bigger than Reagan's entire budgets and the economy failed to respond. So FAIL.

Carter left Reagan with a MUCH stronger economy than Bush left Obama.

 

[bripat9643]

What could possibly be more hilarious than you accusing another poster of using post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments and then immediately proceed to list a litany of post hoc ergo propter hoc excuses for the facts not jibing with your Marxist theories?

I have no idea what you are talking about.
Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush all cut marginal tax rates and the economy responded as people took advantage of the incentives to work more and earn more. That is just fact, jack.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Also, you have many of your facts dead wrong.

Coolidge cut taxes because World War I was over and the high taxes were meant to pay for the war, not as a stimulus. He was the beneficiary of a bubble-driven boom, and he himself was sure it wouldn't last, hence his decision not to run for president in 1928.

Kennedy's tax cut was abandoning the prior idea of discouraging concentration of wealth, and using top tax rates purely as revenue. 77%, where he set the rate, studies show is probably the REAL Laffer point, where higher taxes result in lower revenue. The prosperity of his term was certainly not the result of that tax cut, since it didn't take effect until after his death.

Reagan's tax cut in 1981 was followed by over a year of severe recession, the worst since the Great Depression. The economy didn't fully pick up until 1983, when oil prices dropped after a decade of soaring.

Bush's tax cut -- well, the 2000s speak for themselves, as does the deluge that came at their end.

Since the nation switched back to supply-side economics in the 1980s, per capita economic growth has dropped by more than 50%. THAT'S a fact, Jack.

 

[RDD_1210]

I have no idea what you are talking about.
Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush all cut marginal tax rates and the economy responded as people took advantage of the incentives to work more and earn more. That is just fact, jack.

You can pretty much be sure that anything Rabbi believes, the opposite is probably closer to the truth.

Translation: I cannot refute the facts so I will assassinate the character of the speaker.
Good going, RD! Proving yourself among the most bungling posters here.

You and everything you're about makes me smile.

 

[RDD_1210]

...how backwards it is to give the rich tax breaks

Then you're for a flat tax? Great!

Not at all, thanks for asking.

A flat tax would only hurt the middle class / job creators even further.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

You say "magically," and then you go on to show exactly how it works:

Jobs are created when a business person makes a calculation that their product or service will be in demand if they start up a company

And there you go. The products or services have to be in demand. Customers create jobs.

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.

 

[RDD_1210]

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.

You say "magically," and then you go on to show exactly how it works:

Jobs are created when a business person makes a calculation that their product or service will be in demand if they start up a company

And there you go. The products or services have to be in demand. Customers create jobs.

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.

 

[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.

Bingo!

Dragon claims you can use empirical methods to prove economic theories, but whenever anyone else tries it, he always claims their interpretation of the empirical evidence is wrong. You would think that after getting slapped around the head a few dozen times over this he would learn his lesson. Yet, he continues to claim his theories are "fact based" whereas every contrary theory relying on the exact same facts is wrong.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[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?

 

[Dragon]

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.

 

[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 to pay for the entitlements you love so much and then you're baffled by investors not wanting to invest. I'm sorry but the reason that a free market economy works is that people are enticed to invest because of potential profit. Everything that you do to diminish that potential profit diminishes the number of investors willing to risk their capital.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well there ya go, anecdotal evidence trumps everything!

So you've seen the tax returns of these people you see starting businesses, right?

According to compensation survey administrator PayScale in 2010, the average income of small business owners varies widely depending upon their level of experience. For example, small business owners with less than one year of experience in running an organization earn an annual salary ranging from $34,392 to $75,076.

The Average Income of Small Business Owners | Small Business - Chron.com

Yeah. That would be the salary they earn after they start the business.

Way to move the goalposts! Keep working on your Google-fu, grasshopper.

If you have any evidence whatsoever that most people who start a new business are already RICH when they do so,

why don't you post, or STFU?

 

[Dragon]

Dragon claims you can use empirical methods to prove economic theories, but whenever anyone else tries it, he always claims their interpretation of the empirical evidence is wrong.

You know, speaking of empirical methods, it might help if you actually READ my posts before trying to respond to them. I said not only that his interpretation was wrong, but also that he had the FACTS wrong. Two of the four tax cuts that he said were followed by booms WEREN'T.

So he doesn't even have a correlation, let alone a causation. So we don't have to go to the interpretation; he has the facts themselves wrong.

 

[Oldstyle]

You say "magically," and then you go on to show exactly how it works:



And there you go. The products or services have to be in demand. Customers create jobs.

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.

 

[Dragon]

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."

 

[Dragon]

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.

[Shrug.] And if the sun fails to rise we'll all freeze to death. As long as the demand is there, the response to it can be taken for granted.