The Rich now have a mandate to create jobs

[daenku32]

The rich said that they need the tax cuts in order to create jobs. Well, it's time for the rich to put money where their mouth is and use their fortunes to create jobs. They do not have any excuses not to do so. They claimed they can create jobs better than the government. Well lets see it!

[BobTheCoward]

I think the obvious excuse would be they are simply citizens. They are not elected officials and have no mandate from the country to do anything with their personal resources.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The rich said that they need the tax cuts in order to create jobs. Well, it's time for the rich to put money where their mouth is and use their fortunes to create jobs. They do not have any excuses not to do so. They claimed they can create jobs better than the government. Well lets see it!

Maybe they're rich because they have already created jobs.

[TragicMonkey]

I don't understand how this is supposed to fix the economy--aren't these extensions of prior tax cuts? Why weren't these cuts fixing the economy from the time they were first enacted up until now? Seems to me that if someone wants to make a case that the lower taxes create jobs they could show that unemployment decreased since they were first enacted. Is that the case?

[daenku32]

Maybe they're rich because they have already created jobs.

They claim that they need that wealth in order to create jobs. They should get started on it. The excuses they gave against the tax increase was purely utilitarian, rather than philosophical.

And obviously looking at the unemployment rate, they aren't doing enough of it.

[uruk]

My rich uncle has a saying " you don't get rich by giving away money." You get rich by taking money and holding on to it.

The tax cut for the rich is just a way for them to hold on to what they got.

I respect the rich who worked for and earned it by thier own sweat and blood.

I still respect them if they made it on the backs of others if they respect and treat thier workers fairly and protect thier jobs.

I do not have respect for those who are rich by the manipulation of money and stoc markets and leveraged buy outs, mergers and corporate liquidations, layoffs, undeserved contracted bonuses, snatch and run CEO's with golden parachutes, and just plain corruption and theft.

They made thier money on the backs of others and have no concern for those from whom thier money comes from.

Trickle down was a joke. You cannot create jobs out of thin air to produce products for which there is yet no demand. The jobs become unsustainable if the market does not increase.

Pump more money into the poor and middle class. They have no choice but to spend the money and thus create demand for products and services. the increasing demand will create and sustain jobs.

Rich people seldom spend money in areas that make it back to the poor and middle class. Besides the rich stay rich by not giving money away.

Why spend your own money when you can spend someone elses' money

[lomiller]

. They do not have any excuses not to do so.

Sure they do. Since tax rates only affect the money they don’t spend on hiring people, they can just pocket the money and avoid the taxes without hiring anyone.

[Ysidro]

Obviously they weren't cut enough! Elminate all taxes for the rich! Then they'll create tons of jobs!

Somewhere else.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

They claim that they need that wealth in order to create jobs. They should get started on it. The excuses they gave against the tax increase was purely utilitarian, rather than philosophical.

And obviously looking at the unemployment rate, they aren't doing enough of it.

So you're suggesting they should hire 10 people to make widgets, even though no one is buying widgets right now? So they fill up a warehouse with widgets, and have to lay off the people they just hired. Now what?

[daenku32]

So you're suggesting they should hire 10 people to make widgets, even though no one is buying widgets right now? So they fill up a warehouse with widgets, and have to lay off the people they just hired. Now what?

What I'm suggesting is simply what they had been promising.

But to note on your scenario: by the time they have spent all their money making widgets the employees would have earned enough to restart the economy.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

What I'm suggesting is simply what they had been promising.

But to note on your scenario: by the time they have spent all their money making widgets the employees would have earned enough to restart the economy.

Hooray!!!

[YoPopa]

What I'm suggesting is simply what they had been promising.....

Please provide a few quotes of these promises. I call shenanigans. You made that up.

[daenku32]

Please provide a few quotes of these promises. I call shenanigans. You made that up.

Here's one:
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/letters-278930-freeloaders-mantra.html

[YoPopa]

Here's one:
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/letters-278930-freeloaders-mantra.html

Which quote on that page is a rich person promising to create jobs if the tax rates are reduced?

Your OP seemed to assume that "the rich" were a monolithic block who were all promising to create jobs. You should be able to provide at least a few quotes.

You got nothing.

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt on the issue of whether extending current rates is actually a "cut" although many would argue that is nonsense.

[Cainkane1]

They create jobs by spending money like the poor and middleclass do.

[daenku32]

Which quote on that page is a rich person promising to create jobs if the tax rates are reduced?

Your OP seemed to assume that "the rich" were a monolithic block who were all promising to create jobs. You should be able to provide at least a few quotes.

You got nothing.

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt on the issue of whether extending current rates is actually a "cut" although many would argue that is nonsense.

How about the Heritage Foundation:
http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2010/10/tax-increase-would-kill-economic-growth-jobs

It's called a cut because the baseline is what the taxes were prior to Bush's tax cuts. The rates will return to that baseline at the end of the year if no one does anything. You can't call it Obama's tax hike when he doesn't do anything. It's like calling a demolition "daenku32's demolition" when I was simply observing it on the side of the road while an elephant was sitting on me, and the demolition was planned for years ago.

[daenku32]

They create jobs by spending money like the poor and middleclass do.

Then they have a mandate of spending it like the poor and middle class would.

[YoPopa]

They create jobs by spending money like the poor and middleclass do.

I only know two rich people very well and I can assure you they spend >10X what any middle class person that I know spends. In terms of absolute numbers that is nothing like the poor and middle class.

They do spend like the the poor and middle class in one respect. They spend all they think they can afford to spend.

[YoPopa]

Then they have a mandate of spending it like the poor and middle class would.

Nonsense. Who has the authority to order this mandate?

[YoPopa]

How about the Heritage Foundation:
http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2010/10/tax-increase-would-kill-economic-growth-jobs

Once again you fail to provide a single quote from a rich person promising to provide jobs. The OP is pure straw.

It's called a cut because the baseline is what the taxes were prior to Bush's tax cuts. The rates will return to that baseline at the end of the year if no one does anything. You can't call it Obama's tax hike when he doesn't do anything. It's like calling a demolition "daenku32's demolition" when I was simply observing it on the side of the road while an elephant was sitting on me, and the demolition was planned for years ago.

Why are you trying to argue a point that I was generously giving you?

The point can be argued either way by reasonable people which is why I chose not to argue it with you. By insisting that there is only one way to see it you make yourself look unreasonable.

[CORed]

Maybe they're rich because they have already created jobs.

Or because they're smart enough not to "create jobs" when there is no profit in doing so.

[daenku32]

I only know two rich people very well and I can assure you they spend >10X what any middle class person that I know spends. In terms of absolute numbers that is nothing like the poor and middle class.

They do spend like the the poor and middle class in one respect. They spend all they think they can afford to spend.

They spend much smaller portion of their income. They do not spend like the poor or the middle class. That means they create much fewer number of jobs for every dollar they earn.

[YoPopa]

They spend much smaller portion of their income. They do not spend like the poor or the middle class. That means they create much fewer number of jobs for every dollar they earn.

Wrong and wrong. You have the arrogance to think you know the spending habits of the two rich people I know?

[Almo]

So you're suggesting they should hire 10 people to make widgets, even though no one is buying widgets right now? So they fill up a warehouse with widgets, and have to lay off the people they just hired. Now what?

I can think of one case where this worked, but it's clearly not always going to be useful as a strategy.

Kohler stockpiled toilets and sinks during the Great Depression. They kept people working at reduced hours, but it was better than nothing. Mr. Kohler figured that when the depression ended, there would be building boom. He sold the stockpiled stuff then.

[TraneWreck]

Once again you fail to provide a single quote from a rich person promising to provide jobs. The OP is pure straw.

Perhaps the OP was poorly phrased, but GOP's stated reason for keeping the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy were for job creation (anyone with an IQ over 80 realizes that keeping taxes at the same level they were at for the last decade isn't going to "Create" a job, but that's the BS they used to sell the give-away). As for quotes:

House Speaker in waiting John Boehner said Friday tax cuts are needed to create jobs and reduce the nation’s 9.8 percent unemployment rate.
http://www.kwtx.com/centraltexasvotes/localheadlines/Boehner__Tax_Cuts_Needed_To_Create_Jobs_111270754. html

Economic Freedom Act of 2010 -- introduced by Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) -- proposes deep tax cuts favoring the wealthiest in America, a reduction in regulatory oversight and the elimination of a federal tax on the estates of millionaires, which will allow wealthy investors to escape taxes entirely on a significant portion of their income.

Republicans say the bill will create jobs where President Obama's policies have failed to do so.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/03/republican-jobs-plan-tax-cuts-rich_n_669539.html

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) also endorsed it.


“I think it’s really important that they get this done,” he told the conservative magazine Newsmax. “And one of the reasons it has to happen is because the unemployment rate keeps holding up there near 10 percent ... [and] because with uncertainty hanging over business owners, they can’t hire anybody.”
http://www.benzinga.com/10/12/708595/tax-cut-deal-enough-to-boost-jobs-analyst-blog

These are pretty easy to find with good old Google.

Whether the republicans are actually dumb enough to think tax cuts for the wealthy will create jobs or if they are just spewing BS to get the cuts out of greed, that is the argument they're advancing.

[Merko]

Raising taxes for the rich will create jobs. Almost regardless of what those taxes are used for.

Current unemployment is not due to a lack of investment money. There's so much investment money that investors are buying gold. Gold does not create any wealth. The only reasons investors buy it is because they either believe they can't find a profitable investment, or because they think enough others won't find a profitable investment in the near future that gold prices will rise.

Current unemployment is due to a lack of demand. Meaning there's not enough people who can pay for products. Whenever there's demand, there's someone willing to put up the investment to cater for it.

Raising taxes on the rich means that they will basically buy less gold, which has zero effect on employment. If this money is used for pretty much anything, it will pay wages for someone, wages which will be spent and which will create demand.

The funny thing is that these rich investors aren't even benefiting themselves by holding on to this money. Look at countries like India or Brazil, or western countries 150 years ago. The most wealthy are extremely wealthy. But because these few hold on to such a disproportionate part of resources, their countries cannot truly develop. There is not enough demand for products, and ordinary people do not have enough stake in society to make it truly flourish. So while the rich are obscenely wealthy, they cannot compete dollar for dollar with the wealthiest people in rich countries, because the total economy of these countries cannot support that. And that's not even accounting for the benefit - even to the very richest - of living in a well off society where there is so much more to enjoy.

Actually, beyond a certain point, it does not matter to the wealthy how much they make in absolute currency. Money is no longer important except as an indicator of success. If they made half as much, and their competitors made half as much, it would make no difference to them. But if the ultra-rich collectively made half as much, that would make a huge difference to the economy which would benefit everyone - including the ultra-rich.

[BIGuru]

My rich uncle has a saying " you don't get rich by giving away money." You get rich by taking money and holding on to it.




That is true. Why create jobs in USA or UK, when you can create the jobs in China and make more profit in the process...

[BIGuru]

Current unemployment is due to a lack of demand. Meaning there's not enough people who can pay for products. Whenever there's demand, there's someone willing to put up the investment to cater for it.



Could it be the other way around? Meaning, Unemployment creates the low demand, because people do not have money to buy stuff?

Even if there is demand due to stimulus money, all an investor has to do is buy the stuff from Asia to cater for it. Then there goes your stimulus money out the door all the way to Asia by way of the investor's bank...

[thaiboxerken]

Maybe they're rich because they have already created jobs.

Paris Hilton is rich because she created jobs?

[thaiboxerken]

So you're suggesting they should hire 10 people to make widgets, even though no one is buying widgets right now? So they fill up a warehouse with widgets, and have to lay off the people they just hired. Now what?

Sounds like you have a problem with the supply-side economic theory. I didn't know you were a liberal.

[thaiboxerken]

Wrong and wrong. You have the arrogance to think you know the spending habits of the two rich people I know?

Ahh.. yes. Anecdotes. :rolleyes:

[keale]

Im wondering if theres any data that supports the idea that tax cuts for the rich creates more jobs?

[YoPopa]

Ahh.. yes. Anecdotes. :rolleyes:

Actual real world observations of real people vs. idle speculation. I guess we know which you prefer but I'll take the former any day.

[YoPopa]

Im wondering if theres any data that supports the idea that tax cuts for the rich creates more jobs?

Yes, there is. See WikiP on the Laffer Curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve#Other_empirical_data).

[thaiboxerken]

Actual real world observations of real people vs. idle speculation. I guess we know which you prefer but I'll take the former any day.

Really? What if my "real world observations" contradict yours? What then? I know plenty of wealthy people, more than just 2.

[YoPopa]

Really? What if my "real world observations" contradict yours? What then? I know plenty of wealthy people, more than just 2.

Then don't keep it all a secret. Feel free to share and let folks draw their own conclusions.

Remember that I was responding to daenku32 who made a statement that had zero to back it up. Such unsubstantiated statements are inextricably married with the baser human foibles of envy, greed and slothfulness.

[YoPopa]

Also ...Your experiences will not contradict mine. They may add some value to the discussion but they will not invalidate what I have seen. Unless of course you know the two individuals of whom I was speaking. :rolleyes:

[Molinaro]

Also ...Your experiences will not contradict mine. They may add some value to the discussion but they will not invalidate what I have seen. Unless of course you know the two individuals of whom I was speaking. :rolleyes:

Now that you got your quotes you're just going to ignore them?

You would have to have lived in a cave not to have known that the thread title and OP matched the Republican arguments in favor of tax cuts for the rich.

[YoPopa]

Now that you got your quotes you're just going to ignore them?

You would have to have lived in a cave not to have known that the thread title and OP matched the Republican arguments in favor of tax cuts for the rich.

Total fail. No quotes supporting the OP have been provided. I think you read the first 1/2 the thread and thought you had it figured out. Please read the entire thread and catch up to where the rest of us are.

[Molinaro]

Total fail. No quotes supporting the OP have been provided. I think you read the first 1/2 the thread and thought you had it figured out. Please read the entire thread and catch up to where the rest of us are.

Post #25. I guess you missed it.

[Region Rat]

Paris Hilton is rich because she created jobs?

No, so you're right there, but she is doing one heck of a job of spending that wealth. Is that not helping the economy?

[YoPopa]

Post #25. I guess you missed it.

I did not miss post 25. You have misread it to fit your wishful thinking. Even post 25 starts off with an admission that the thread OP was poorly phrased. That was being extremely generous IMHO. The thread OP was "cleverly" phrased to create a straw man argument.

Let me see you pull out the quotes where some rich people promised to create jobs if the tax rates were not increased.

[TraneWreck]

I did not miss post 25. You have misread it to fit your wishful thinking. Even post 25 starts off with an admission that the thread OP was poorly phrased. That was being extremely generous IMHO. The thread OP was "cleverly" phrased to create a straw man argument.

Let me see you pull out the quotes where some rich people promised to create jobs if the tax rates were not increased.

Now that Russ Feingold has been voted out of office, there's not a single US Senator with a net worth under $1 million.

John Boehner is a wealthy man. The other republicans speaking in their roles as Congresspeople are wealthy. They're saying the tax cuts will create jobs.

I don't know if that qualifies as a "promise," but it's certainly a causal argument:

tax cuts----->jobs.

But I get your point. There wasn't a clamoring by wealthy Americans explaining how they'd use their cuts to create jobs. There were more folks clearly saying they didn't need the cut. The OP could be stated much better.

[Molinaro]

I did not miss post 25. You have misread it to fit your wishful thinking. Even post 25 starts off with an admission that the thread OP was poorly phrased. That was being extremely generous IMHO. The thread OP was "cleverly" phrased to create a straw man argument.

Let me see you pull out the quotes where some rich people promised to create jobs if the tax rates were not increased.

Everyone quoted in post #25 is rich. Or does it have to be some other rich people?

We had rich people speaking on behalf of rich people, but for you only certain rich people will do?

[YoPopa]

Now that Russ Feingold has been voted out of office, there's not a single US Senator with a net worth under $1 million.

John Boehner is a wealthy man. The other republicans speaking in their roles as Congresspeople are wealthy. They're saying the tax cuts will create jobs.

I don't know if that qualifies as a "promise," but it's certainly a causal argument:

tax cuts----->jobs.

But I get your point. There wasn't a clamoring by wealthy Americans explaining how they'd use their cuts to create jobs. There were more folks clearly saying they didn't need the cut. The OP could be stated much better.

I respect your desire to change the subject of this thread as it was DOA. But you have not exactly provided quotes which support even your modified assertion that the rich Republicans promised that not raising taxes for the rich would create jobs.

#1 link to kwtx.com was not a quote but a paraphrase by the reporter.

#2. The huffingtonpost? Oh please, gag me with a yellow rag. More paraphrasing by lefty loonies with not a single verifiable quote by anyone on the right.

#3. A blog. OMG. Not even one quote in that. I don't see why you bothered to include it.

I'll do a little paraphrasing of my own. The promise made was primarily that raising any taxes in the current economy would be destructive. That is not the same thing as saying that keeping the rates the same would be a guarantee of job creation.

[YoPopa]

Everyone quoted in post #25 is rich. Or does it have to be some other rich people?

We had rich people speaking on behalf of rich people, but for you only certain rich people will do?

Show me those actual quotes. Not paraphrasing by left leaning bloggers or HufPo loonies, but real quotes.

[thaiboxerken]

No, so you're right there, but she is doing one heck of a job of spending that wealth. Is that not helping the economy?

Yes. But I doubt letting her taxes stay the same will make any difference in her spending habits.

[Region Rat]

Yes. But I doubt letting her taxes stay the same will make any difference in her spending habits.

So she's just not able to spend it fast enough for you, and needs help from congress to do so?

I absolutely hate the fact that you've led me into the trap of seeming to defend Paris Hilton, and I'll never forgive you for it.

[TraneWreck]

I respect your desire to change the subject of this thread as it was DOA. But you have not exactly provided quotes which support even your modified assertion that the rich Republicans promised that not raising taxes for the rich would create jobs.

#1 link to kwtx.com was not a quote but a paraphrase by the reporter.

So you're arguing Boehner does not think that tax cuts create jobs?

More often then not, those articles are written from press releases from Congressional offices. I didn't want to spend hours digging through transcripts so I just grabbed the easily available info.



#2. The huffingtonpost? Oh please, gag me with a yellow rag. More paraphrasing by lefty loonies with not a single verifiable quote by anyone on the right.

Come on now, we're not morons here. If there's something wrong with the article, say what. Broad-based source slandering is lazy, at best.

Fox News isn't wrong because they're Fox News. They're wrong because when you examine a claim or story, it's factually incorrect. Same is true of Huffington.


#3. A blog. OMG. Not even one quote in that. I don't see why you bothered to include it.

Here was the right link for that quote. Must have copied the wrong one:

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/132823-sarah-palin-hits-out-at-the-tax-deal



I'll do a little paraphrasing of my own. The promise made was primarily that raising any taxes in the current economy would be destructive. That is not the same thing as saying that keeping the rates the same would be a guarantee of job creation.

Of course, that's wrong, but I get your point. He's claiming that somehow increased taxes on the highest marginal income bracket will kill job creation. Of course, it could depending on how that tax revenue was spent, but the increased taxation itself won't have that effect.

Spending that increased revenue on boosting aggregate demand, however, would lead to job growth.

I'm not really sure what you're arguing. The Republican position is that cutting taxes and spending will create jobs. There's no good evidence to suggest this will happen, but it's clearly their position.

Boehner's "2 Step Plan" is to extend the tax cuts and cut spending:

In a statement, the Ohio Republican identified the "two main problems hampering job creation" as "excessive government spending and the uncertainty Washington Democrats' policies -- especially their massive tax hike -- are causing small businesses."

Boehner called on House Republicans to take on the problems in two ways.

For one thing, he suggested passing a bill that "cuts non-security related government spending for the next year back to FY 2008 levels -- before all of the bailouts, government takeovers and 'stimulus' spending sprees began."

[...]

As the second point, he suggested the Congress "enact a two-year freeze on all current tax rates to stop job-killing tax hikes on families and small businesses."
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/boehner_obama/index.htm?cnn=yes

Again, this is a statement he released.

I'm not sure how he thinks this will work in a country with an aggregate demand problem, but there you have it. He's claiming that raising taxes on the wealthy will destroy jobs. That's as false as pretending like tax cuts will magically create them.

And here's evidence that the tax cuts combined with spending cuts actually will cause a loss of jobs:

http://www.epi.org/page/-/pdf/pm171.pdf

We can argue about the specific way the OP is phrased, but the important point is that the clearly voiced Republican notion of job growth is just silly.

[thaiboxerken]

So she's just not able to spend it fast enough for you, and needs help from congress to do so?


Not at all. I'm just saying that her tax rates probably play no role in how she spends money.

[Mr. Purple]

Only as a devil's advocate- I hear this argument a lot:

The so-called 'rich' are usually small ma & pa businesses. Or some variation of the theme that those affected are no what would commonly come to mind as 'rich'.

I don't know how to look at the data myself in an unbiased way. I am sure there are dozens of factors that I am ignorant of regarding tax law for the "rich". It is all I can do to fill out a 10-40 and schedule C.

Perhaps others could shed some light here.