If lower taxes on the rich help create jobs...then WHERE ARE OUR FUCKING JOBS?

[Hugabear]

Sorry, I just want to scream that whenever I hear some right-wing gas bag argue that we should extend the tax cuts for the rich on the basis that lower taxes help create jobs. Well, these rich fucks have been enjoying lower taxes for almost a decade, so where are all the jobs that they should be creating? They aren't there because these rich fucks don't give a flying fuck about creating jobs, it's just pure extortion, plain and simple. It's a con game. If Congress does extend their tax cuts, they'll just do what they've been doing for the past decade, stashing it away, or investing it in schemes that don't really create much in the way of jobs whatsoever. How many times do we have to be fed this "trickle down" nonsense before we realize that it's poison?

[Radical Activist]

1. fuck yeah

[Subdivisions]

2. Maybe they are imaginary jobs...

:shrug:

[Lasher]

3. No, they actually invested their tax cut money to create real jobs.

In other countries like China, replacing US jobs with cheap foreign labor.

[gateley]

6. ....

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[Axle_techie]

43. +1

[Hugabear]

4. I see the un-reccers are out

Surprised there would be any right-wing lurkers on right now. Figured they'd be on their way to the big Klan Rally this weekend.

[unpossibles]

51. maybe their mom's want them to stay home and play a board game. nt

[BootinUp]

5. What office will you run for?

signing up to volunteer for your campaign

[gateley]

7. Jesus. So fucking simple. Brilliant. K and Fucking R! nt

[DCKit]

8. Then ask those asshats "where are the jobs?"

They've had several years to create them with all the tax breaks for the wealthy.

It's all on the shoulders of the rich now. It's what we were promised.

[Sherman A1]

9. An excellent question!

[Hannah Bell]

10. lower their taxes & they "invest" in financial bubbles or jobs in china or

bahaman bank accounts.

they need to be taxed more.

[corpseratemedia]

11. i'd love to cover my car with bumper stickers with your question

only i'd get killed in my area

[B Calm]

12. The rich never have created jobs. First you have to have need, second

you need a good wage to be able to purchase the need. In other words the working class create jobs, not the rich. The rich capitalize on the need. But the rich are too damn dumb to understand this and through the years in search of cheaper labor and bigger profit have sent our jobs overseas. In other words they are shooting theirselves in the foot, because now we can't afford to buy our need.

[upi402]

13. I want to scream that question too

and the TV talking heads just let it play as if it's bible.

[DesertFlower]

14. i heard some right winger say "they're not

creating jobs because they're afraid their taxes WILL go up".

[HughBeaumont]

17. So that's the excuse . . . a nine-year spooking?

Were they hoping to get McClown and DumbButt into office to make these things permanent? Is that why we've had zero job growth in ten years? All this time they were fearing the sunset?

Unbelievable how the right wing spins shit to avoid simply saying "We Were WRONG."

[Lagomorph]

15. India.....duh - nt

[billlll]

16. WPA is the way to get jobs

Permanent WPA.
http/www.njfac.org

Not sure of http part
But the njfac.org is correct

Total employ was
FOUNDATION
of Swedish society golden age

[OrwellwasRight]

48. C'mon . . . who needs roads and parks and schools and public

monuments and libraries and bridges and stuff? Don't those things just build themselves when you reduce taxes and starve the government for funds? Isn't that how we got Blue Sky Parkway, the TVA, the Hoover Dam, the Interstate Highway system, Mount Rushmore, and all that stuff? It just built itself, with no public investment needed, right???? :7

[HughBeaumont]

18. CON. GAME.

Anytime someone peddles this bullshit snake oil, take them here and make them OWN UP. Tax cuts DO NOT CREATE JOBS. They create misery for the working/middle/poor class, mastery for the owner class.

I wonder what proportion of net jobs created overseas in 10 years vs net jobs created HERE is?

[AndyA]

19. THAT is a question our media should be asking the Republicans.

I, too, get angry when I hear the right wingers talk about tax cuts creating jobs. Tax cuts sure didn't create any jobs between 2001-2008, and it sure didn't stave off the recession.

It's really kind of ridiculous. It's like a bank robber, standing there with red dye exploded all over his face, with a bag of money, saying no I didn't rob the bank. And no one questions him on it.

We need to restore the Fairness Doctrine, and bring it up to date so there's accountability in the media. Without it (or something like it), we will continue to be bombarded with propaganda presented as news, and the media will censor what we're told if it's in their corporate parent's best interest.

I don't want to hear GE's version of the news, I just want the facts, please. All of them.

[4dsc]

20. You can fool a teabagger all the time with rhetoric. nt

[tularetom]

21. This belongs on the greatest page

K & R

[tanyev]

22. 'Zackly.

http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-jobs-lost-in-the-bush-and-obama-administration-2010-2

[CLANG]

35. I am so curious as to the crazy logic they'd cough up if you showed the teabaggers that chart.

There really is no cure for stupid.

[Axle_techie]

46. I would say the logic is that

only so many people can lose their jobs...

once that chart shows jobs being recreated instead of a sustained unemployment, then it is something to talk about. I hope it happens soon.

[ljm2002]

23. You and me both...

...I keep waiting for the talking heads to ask your question whenever someone makes the claim about tax cuts for the rich creating jobs. So far, though, I haven't heard the question asked. Quelle surprise.

[BlueDemKev]

24. I'll tell you where the jobs are....

...they've been outsourced to India and China. Of course, it's all the unions' fault because they refuse to agree to workers being paid on 10 cents an hour. And it's liberals' fault also because they insist that companies provide safe working conditions for their employees. Such a costly inconvenience for the poor American big business owner who'd prefer to dump OSHA, ADA, the FMLA, and the minimum wage also, so those poor, overburdened CEO's ship American jobs overseas. :mad:

[Cass]

65. You nailed it. nt

[Vehl]

25. Can the republicans explain why "trickle down" is better than "trickle up"?

If trickle down works...then so would trickle up

what are the reasons republicans give against trickle up? that people would hoard the money? cos whatever reason they say against trickle up would also be said about trickle down.

[The Wizard]

64. Trickle down:

Golden parachutes for the wealthy and golden showers for everyone else.

[Jade Fox]

26. Right wingers have tuned out reality to the point where....

they can't see what's right in front of their face.

[Liberal In Texas]

27. It's so obvious yet the brainwashed still insist on taking up for the uber rich.

K&R

[marew]

28. Exactly! n/t

[Joe Fields]

29. Where are our jobs? In India.

[Virginian]

67. And if the jobs can't go to India,

They issue an H-1b visa to bring the Indians here. It's tough being unemployed and seeing the Indians that took your job driving around in expensive fancy cars.

[musette_sf]

73. + 1

so true

[glinda]

30. Our jobs are overseas and the $$$$ is in their pockets. Can't make the selfish

act other than what they are.
It is seemingly a humungo character flaw that the top 1% have.

[JDPriestly]

31. Precisely!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

32. They aren't low enough. They have to be Minus Graham's Number Percent.

We'll only reach true economic justice when every subatomic particle in the Universe is decreed to owe aleph-infinite dollars to the Worthy Few.

[valerief]

33. Stating the obvious is anti-American, it seems. nt

[Buenaventura]

34. but ... you don't understand - it's not about *our* jobs

oh, but you do understand

[Locrian]

36. Arrrh! I want to scream as well...

The corporate poison runs deep....

TeaBaggers complain about government and a "nanny" state while they get on their knees and service corporate predators. For some reason, they WANT to be their bitch.

Business have never created ONE job from tax cuts. Businesses create jobs because of DEMAND. If there are no buyers with cash then there is no freaking demand. Oh, but that's right, if you give money to the rich, they "invest" it in bubble economies, etc. That'll fix *everything*....

Instead of fixing government which is supposed to be OUR tool to a better living, they demand to limit their own power. Of course it doesn't help that the entire system is contaminated with corporate poison.

[Locrian]

37. damn double post....

[Little Star]

38. Good Question!!

[Fire1]

39. "Trickle down" IS certainly a trojan horse. Agree, there. n/t

[northofdenali]

40. Mine went bye-bye on June 30. Layoff.

But they're advertising for my position at a much lower hourly rate.

[Botany]

41. unemployment went up after the bush tax cuts for the rich

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usunemployment&met=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment+rate

[jobycom]

42. India, China, Mexico.

They create jobs. They just don't create jobs here. The wealthy get more money to invest, thus their companies become more profitable on the margins, thus a business venture that was previously marginally unprofitable becomes profitable. So, say, you sell tee shirts, and you get a big tax cut and you are told "Spend that on increasing your business," you aren't going to start making more tee shirts unless a) you have some reason to believe people are buying more tee shirts, or b) you can make tee shirts cheaper than your competitor and steal his business. So you find a factory overseas, you import cheaper tee shirts and sell them cheaper, and your competitor goes out of business as you undercut his market. You've created jobs, just not here.

Big business doesn't take big risks with their own money. If they are going to increase their investments, it is going to be in a market that already exists, so their investments aren't going to create new jobs. The middle and lower classes are the ones who start new businesses on a dream. They are also the ones who buy the products that make the new businesses work, or fail. The only way to stimulate the economy is to give more resources and money to the lower and middle classes, let them begin buying more, and let them begin starting their own companies. That stimulates the economy, that creates jobs here (because a mid-size business isn't as likely to be able to afford to ship its jobs overseas), that creates more employers to compete for the labor market, and that stimulates the economy. It's a relative thing, too--giving the lower income brackets more money relative to the amount you give the richest gives them more power in relation to the rich, and that is a major factor.

That's how Clinton did it. He raised taxes on the richest, cut them on the poorest, and created unprecedented growth while creating a budget surplus. He reversed Reaganomics, and it reversed the destructive Reagan economy. Bush undid all that, and now we're stuck in the same ditch Reagan left us in.

Let the tax cuts on the wealthy expire, renew the tax cuts on the wealthy, and that will turn the economy around. Compromise on that, and we won't recover until after the next Republican gets kicked out of office. Better yet, cut taxes further on the lower incomes, raise them on capital gains as well as on the highest incomes, and you'll start to see a real turnaround, especially if we begin investing that money in real jobs.

[SmileyRose]

45. Soon to be in Africa

the chinese are getting uppity - demanding 60 cents a day instead of 30 cents.

[npk]

44. America is not willing to support a manufacturing economy any longer

Once the knees of the unions were bashed and bludgeoned, and corporations got their MAN in the White House, the once strong manufacturing economy was history.

[Anakin Skywalker]

47. Your Jobs Are Overseas.

[KillCapitalism]

49. Oh come on guys, they create a few jobs.

They create jobs at the BMW dealerships b/c they're buying up luxury items like crazy in this recession. They also create jobs for illegal Mexican immigrants. They need someone to garden, clean, cook, and watch their brats for $7.50 an hour. :thumbsdown:

[roseBudd]

50. The ultimate smackdown, worse than Carter

Carter: 4 years 10.5 million jobs +13.1%
Clinton: 8 years 23 million jobs + 21.1%
Bush: 7 years, 2.8 million jobs + 2.3%, 2008 MINUS 2.6 million jobs

[metapunditedgy]

52. I don't understand your complaint... the rich have jobs, don't they?

:sarcasm:

(That is, if they can be bothered to work at all.)

[Oldtimeralso]

53. Just look at all the jobs the rich have created!

How many lobbyists have they hired to do their bidding.

[riderinthestorm]

54. Have to K and R!! nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

55. A lot of them don't even know that taxes on top earners are lower

than at any time since the 1920s.

[Mendocino]

56. It's not trickle down,

it's yellow rain. The rich have been pissing on this country for far too long.

[Wednesdays]

57. K&R

:kick:

[Kablooie]

58. If you are a maid or a butler there are now more jobs for you.

[alittlelark]

59. They've had lower taxes for almost 30 years...

Reagan started this outsourcing landslide of jobs.

[Beartracks]

60. If tax cuts fight recessions, how'd we end up in a recession?

Same point, different question.

K&R for stating the obvious. It's a really succinct way to say to GOPers, "We tried your way for 8 years, and look where it got us."

And by they way, your job is in India. Have a safe flight!

------------------------------

[laughingliberal]

61. "these rich fucks have been enjoying lower taxes for almost a decade,"

The top rate is 50% what it was when Reagan took office. We see what's happened to good jobs and good wages in these past 30 years. Based on the evidence, I'd say tax cuts for the wealthy are a job killer, a wage killer, and possibly the death of SS as we know it.

[minavasht]

62. OK, I am curious

Tell me how it will work.
I guess your solution is to tax them heavily? How is that going to create jobs?

Let's say you tax every single person to a degree where nobody takes home more than a mill. Again, how is that going to create jobs?
Also, why do you think that creating jobs should be their goal?

[Hugabear]

66. I'll ask you the same question then - where are our fucking jobs?

If giving tax cuts to the wealthy is supposed to help create jobs, then were are all the jobs? Oh wait, I guess you think we need MORE tax cuts! Maybe if we eliminated ALL taxes for the rich, and shifted the burden to the poor - you know, those filthy people who don't create jobs and don't carry their own weight - maybe we'd see an increase in jobs, right?

[Binka]

74. That Poster Does Not Want A Cogent Answer

You know what I mean.

[minavasht]

82. No, I don't know what you mean

Again, if there are no rich people , who will create the jobs?

[minavasht]

81. 47% of the

taxpayers do not pay taxes.
I would think that changing the system so they can earn more money and start paying taxes is a better solution than taxing the rest more.

[Wounded Bear]

69. Actually, it's simple...

High marginal tax rates encourage them to actually invest the money in job creating ways, assuming the tax code is written well.

Taxes are on profits. Higher taxes encourage re-investment.

[Count Olaf]

78. Cancel "free" trade agreements- Impose Tariffs

New Tariffs, BIG tariffs, double the previous-

On top of that Maximum salaries for CEO's. It is just absurdly unacceptable for them to fire so many workers to pad their own pockets. If they cannot hold themselves to some sort of common decency, there needs to be legislation to stop them.

There needs to be incentive to stay in the country and keep our jobs here. Currently there is no reason for these money grubbing bastards to stay in the country and hire US citizens.

[newspeak]

90. It's so funny people thinking there was no economic success with taxing

Under FDR, tax on the wealthy was about 94%--Eisenhower, 88%. Didn't seem to be any problem-but now after Reagan, there's a problem. Well, I can say one thing, after Reagan we sure saw that disparity widen between the rich and the poor.

[HughBeaumont]

91. no one takes home more than a million?

Wowz, someone doesn't understand the difference between "effective" and "marginal" tax rates. Are you one of those people that laughably think the poor actually have it easier than the rich based on their tax rates?

Geez, how many times does this right wing canard HAVE to get shot down? I don't know. How many times?

[Chisox08]

63. In India, China or any other third world country that we are not blowing up

[closeupready]

68. K&R Been saying that for years now.

+1000

[clu]

70. the popular thing i hear is that...

environmental and business regulations force jobs overseas. it's almost discouraging.

[newspeak]

88. what you got is so-called american companies--they are actually global now

who know better, but do it anyway-exploit labor and the environment of other countries. Some of them just love a good dictator or corrupt government who will think of that business over their own people. These are no longer american companies--they could care less what happens to this country or it's people as long as they make an extra buck. I'd say some of these corporations have become so sociopathic, that to poison or kill a couple of hundred or thousand people to make increased profits wouldn't bother them a bit.

Instead of giving businesses decreased taxes-I think incentives that were in place in the fifties might help. Give allowances for hiring our citizens (this would really help small businesses), and incentives for positive innovations (I think this would help with alternative energy).

But, individual wealthy, I think they've had enough of a tax recess (since Reagan)--I'd increase it to 66%, the before Reagan rate. They were not hurting before Reagan, they won't be hurting now.

[taupe]

71. tax the rich, not entrepreneurs

Okay, I am taking a risk and reply to this post. Someone needs to explain how jobs are created. I will give it a try. First of all, I think it is fine to tax the rich. But who are the rich? Rich is a measure of wealth, so in my view anyone who has a net worth of more than say $4 million or $5 million is rich. Someone who earns more than $250,000 a year certainly makes a nice income, but may not be rich. It is important to separate the two. We should tax the rich but not the entrepreneurs, because it is the entrepreneurs who create the jobs.

About 70% of those earning more than $250,000 year are small-business owners. And by small business I mean less than 50 employees.
If someone makes more than $250,000 a year as a business owner, that business is very successful. And if the business is successful, that means it is profitable and growing. And if it is growing, that means the company is creating jobs. So, the majority of people earning more than $250,000 per year are the successful entrepreneurs who are creating the most jobs. We want to encourage these people to create more jobs, not tax them more.

Most small businesses do not pay taxes directly, the entrepreneur pays taxes personally on the business income. A small business cannot leave cash in the business without paying tax on it. That is simply how the tax rules work.

Businesses need cash in order to grow. Where does this cash come from? First of all, it does not usually come from banks because banks only lend when there is security. Banks will lend against Accounts Receivable but that is not new money, it simply speeds up the cash to be received from customers. So where does the money come to grow? Sometimes entrepreneurs will take out a second mortgage on their house in order to fund their business. Certainly the profits are plowed back into the business to help it grow.

Why would a business owner reinvest in his company? For one it is the best investment he can make, better than putting it in a bank account and better than putting it in the stock market, plus he has total control over it. Furthermore, any money reinvested into the business will help grow the business and when he eventually goes to sell the business it will be worth more. So it is money well spent. Most of the entrepreneurs I know are always strapped for cash. And the faster a business grows, the more strapped for cash it gets. One of the reasons for this is that the company must pay for the raw materials and labor for a widget, before it can sell and collect cash for that widget. It is a timing problem.

The net result is that the less an entrepreneur pays in taxes, the more cash he will have to grow his business and create jobs. I hope this is helpful.

[Sparkly]

72. "About 70% of those earning more than $250,000 year are small-business owners."

Where did you get this information, please?

Also, does your source state what percentage of small business owners make more than $250,000 a year?

[Elwood P Dowd]

76. 98% of all small business owners make less than $250,000 a year.

The poster is wrong!

Edit to add: They may gross $250,000, but it's the net taxable income after all expenses and deductions that determines the tax bill.

[Sparkly]

80. Yes, that's what I understand.

Go figure.

[taupe]

83. I agree with you that

98% of small businesses make less than 250,000 in profit, and I am talking net profit, after all expenses. But that is beside the point. The point is that the ones that make more than $250,000 are the exceptional ones. They are the most successful ones, the fastest growing companies, and the companies that create the most jobs. How do I know this? I consult to technology companies, so I see this first hand.

Think about it. Who makes more than 250k? Some sports stars, some entertainers, some big corporate CEOS (these guys are visible but there aren't that many of them), some attorneys and the rest are small business owners. I have read the 70% statistic a number of times and would love to find a real source for this info. My guess is one of the government sites has this info. But this is also consistent with my consulting experience.

[Sparkly]

84. So you don't have a source for the 70% figure?

In any case, I see no argument against returning to the former tax rates for people making over $250k. What helps the economy (by helping consumers) ends up helping those businesses.

[taupe]

92. How does taxing small business help consumers?

And you can call it "returning to the former tax rates" if you like, but it is a tax increase nonetheless. A tax increase is a tax increase. Period.

My point is that growing businesses are almost always strapped for cash. Raising their taxes reduces their cash and therefore reduces how fast they can grow their businesses and therefore reduces the number of new employees can hire. This is how business works.

What I am trying to do here is explain how business works, because I can see from the comments that many people do not have a good understanding of this. And this topic is important because it affects how we form our tax policies going forward. We need to have tax policies that encourage and support the creation of jobs. Increasing taxes on the the most successful entrepreneurs, the ones who create the most jobs is just a totally stupid idea.

[newspeak]

89. what I stated above

giving incentives and tax breaks to smaller companies who keep their hires here. Tax breaks for innovation, tax breaks for hiring locally. Giving tax breaks to businesses who help their community (none for supporting political groups-and does not mean supporting the chamber of commerce).

[taupe]

93. I agree. Those are all very good ideas

[Binka]

75. No Not Helpful. n/t

[earth mom]

77. Face it-they are pissing on us all as they laugh all the way to the bank.

The sooner the middle class on BOTH sides of the aisle realizes this the better!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

79. More things to tell the wingnuts

Hiring people, like all other legitimate business expenses, REDUCES a company's taxes. Taxes are on PROFITS (income minus expenses), not on total intake.

This is an important point. You'll find that a lot of people believe that businesses are taxed exactly like individuals, i.e. a certain percentage of their total income, minus a few meager deductions, no matter what other expenses they may have had. But businesses can--and do!-- deduct all sorts of things that individuals can't.

[Skidmore]

85. So where are the signs with this on it at local events for candidates???

Remember the highway signs that appeared during the * administration? Why not do this now?

[Gecko6400]

86. Around here some of the local RW

talk shows are saying that it, the job loss, would have been much worse if not for these tax cuts. Wonder where they could have possibly got that line or reasoning from?

[newspeak]

87. I find it interesting how some wish to defend Reagan's "trickle on" economic disaster

before Reagan taxes on the wealthy was at 66%-during Eisenhower it was 88%. But, some want to argue how Reagan's economic policies creates jobs--I have a list of once healthy American companies who were raped and pillaged by some of the most worthless pieces of shite and their generational workers left in the wind. Some of those companies were bought so many times, like Simplicity, I believe they finally were sold to a foreign enterprise.

I believe Eisenhower gave tax deductions to companies for innovation and hiring at home. But, anyone who believes giving tax breaks, like Reagans, to the wealthy, are in Lalaland. We can see today, the effects of Reagan's "voodoo economics." We have a disparity in wealth that has not been seen since before the great depression. There is no incentives for corporations to hire at home--they get their tax break and just send the money overseas.

Then, you have companies like XE and Halliburton who have government contracts, take our money, and move their headquarters to the ME. What I see is a bunch of greedy, sociopathic vampires draining us--our money goes into their pockets and yet, what we paid in for, Social Security may be put on the chopping block. For those of us who want to take care of our citizens, to rebuild our infrastructure--no, the priority is for war, the MIC and protecting corporations.

Little Boots was in office for eight years, and at the beginning passed tax cuts to the wealthy--he has the WORST job creation record since the great depression, so how does giving the wealthy more tax cuts help the poor and middle class? He had eight years with that excuse and he made it worse.