"Wealthy should keep their money...they create jobs" RWer's comment

This must be a talking point of the RW. Every time taxes are mentioned the RW suggests that jobs will be lost because the wealthy use all of their money to create jobs.

How about my money. I don't have much, but when I spend it, the little I spend should help create a job. Millions of people like me create jobs too! Together we create jobs just like the wealthy.

I can't tell you how idiotic it is to have adult write LTTEs and claim that the wealthy have a right to not be taxed. If nothing else, the wealthy benefit more from taxes than the rest of us. Federal highways, education and health care all benefit the wealthy more.

They get an educated workforce, a way to transport goods and a national defense that protects their businesses.

I doubt that the terrorists have much of a gripe with a family guy in the Midwest. Now on the other hand, they might take aim at the CEO of Chevron, or Texaco, or perhaps Dow Chemical. Those are the targets that the military protects.

Sorry, just a Tuesday rant. I feel better now.

seems lost on most of them.

as Capital gains tax, the tax on funds used to expand business. If I'm not mistaken. If conservatives are supposed to be such financial geniuses why don't they realize this?

Let's go back to the 1950s, when the top bracket paid 90% income tax. Did the U.S. suffer from lack of jobs back then?

How about the 1960s, after Kennedy dropped the top rate to 70%. Poor job growth then, too?

This lie has been out there for so long, there are millions of people who accept it as gospel truth. And that sucks. The wealthy benefit the most from the existence of government - because if it weren't for the government protecting their assets and guaranteeing a value for the money they use, they'd have squat.

the rich should pay their fair share. The poor shouldn't have to pay taxes for the rich. That's what happened after the tax cuts, when Bush* used the Social Security money to pay for his war.

Imagine that this very second, government ceased to exist.

Who loses the most?

THAT'S who should be paying the most.

Everybody should pay what they can in tax's and since the wealthy have more why not help out the economy? Do you want to have public education where people can get ahead? How about picking up your garbage? Or do they want to take that themselves? Or how about recycling? Here in my town if you call a number and give your address you can get your recyling picked up at your house. Why make someone who isn't quite as rich pay more in tax's? That's just shit.

the other day, one of my employees was telling me the same thing just yesterday. Complete and utter bullshit.

they can't say anything different that might go along with what they think they believe.

How about my money. I don't have much, but when I spend it, the little I spend should help create a job. Millions of people like me create jobs too! Together we create jobs just like the wealthy.

The nail has been hit squarely on the head with that one.

Waging a war while driving up the deficit and simultaneously giving upper incomes a massive tax cut has killed the ability of the middle class to sustain many markets.

According to one poll ( sorry - radio so I have no link) I heard yesterday, 6 out of 10 Americans say jobs are "hard to find." SIX OUT OF TEN!!!!

The proof is in the pudding. Bush's Voodoo Economics just don't work.

The only really good years my family has had (in my adult life) were during the Clinton years. As my Dear Old Dad says, "Whenever Republicans are in power, the economy goes to shit."

of something Dean said when he became the chairman. He said basically you can't trust republicans with your money and how there have only been two times in our country's history to where we had a surplus in our budget. One time was Andrew Jackson. The next time was Bill Clinton (who had the BIGGEST surplus in our country's history). Both men were democrats.

Jackson isn't one of my heroes, but at least he did a better job with the economy.

what it would've been like if FDR had tax'd the poor instead of the wealthy in the great depression?? NO president has tax'd the poor during a time of war. Only the idiot would do that!

The wealthy will create jobs. Unfortunately, many of them don't. These people overlook theidea of demand side economics, where less wealthy people HAVE to spend excess money on goods and services--thereby creating a demand which is filled by suppliers. I personally think it's just undisguised greed.

...if and only if the big sponge at the top gets squeezed.

Good imagery!

not a pleasant experience.

China, India, for illegal immigrants being paid a fraction of the minimum wage....back in the Clinton era when I had a six figure income I was PROUD to write a check for $40,000 in taxes. I figured that a big tax bill meant that I was doing quite well, and as a "patriot" I felt that I should be giving back to the country that helped to educate me well enough to earn such an income (and I only went to public schools for four years-I was in private schools the rest of the time). I also gave my maids and lawn care professionals HUGE tips, because NO ONE can survive on minimum wage in this country and by taking care of those jobs around my house, I was freed up to work on more lucrative jobs-so I shared the wealth. I honestly can't understand WHY anyone making over $150,000 a year can feel so stingy-let alone those making millions each year! Unless you live in a very costly area (NYC, SF, LA, etc.) you've got a comfortable home, you can pay for services like maids and lawn care, you can cover most normal medical costs, you can take two nice vacations each year and drive a late model car...what more does anyone need?

therefor, they should pay more for this benefit. This is the counter meme to the selfish, elitist wealthy in our society.

As for 'creating' anything, money itself is a social creation. The money they have was not created by the efforts of the wealthy, it was created by the efforts of the workers and it is backed by a government created by all the people, not just the wealthy.

The wealthy have no more 'rights' than any other person.

If the wealthy want to live in a world where they think they somehow have more 'rights' just because of their wealth, let them create their own world on some island someplace, and they can haul their own garbage to the dump, built their own roads, make their own steel. Then they can make any rules they want. But as long as they are living in this world with us, then they WILL live according to the rules all of us live by, the constitution.

Sooner or later the middle class in this country will come around to their senses. Payback will be sweet.

That's the sound of the Middle Class sleeping through the latest episode of American Idle -oops- American Idol.

Middle class ain't waking up until it isn't in the middle any more.

They can even make their own new currency, and everyone on the island can be content and self-assured at how "rich" they are (but, interestingly enough, nothing ever gets done).

There is absolutely no basis in the statement that tax cuts stimulate job growth. It's been tried time and time again by small gov't idealogues and it just isn't so.

So, when someone says the wealthy CREATE jobs, ask for their objective proof, including econometric data, to establish that such a thing actually has ever occurred.

They won't be able to do it.
The Professor

I'm a tax lawyer... I do a lot of estate planning, personal tax and charitable organizations work. Anecdotally, I've see what you've said... there is no evidence that the tax cut money actually gets spent on job creation. I know where I think it goes... I'm curious if there are any studies out there on what actually happens to it.

Remember, that the bulk of capital that changes hands in reinvestment plans, after capital gains are realized, go into large portfolios of multiple account managers. As a result, the profits are taken by those holding the stocks or equity managers, not the companies issuing those stocks. The result is that those cuts are not benefitting the large companies generating employment.

There is a modest case to be made that capital gains tax cuts have resulted in increased availability of venture capital which can help launch smaller businesses and grow already existing ones to help add more employees. But, that requires a willingness on the part of profit takers to INCREASE the level of risk. Since they just made money and paid fewer taxes on the existing level of risk, it just doesn't happen that often.

Also, holders of large portfolios don't worry much about things like insurance policies, and insurance companies do a lot of business lending for expansion of onoing concerns and venture capital lending.

So, what studies show is that only about 5 or 6% of the reinvested capital ends up in that pool, and that reinvested capital only represents about 30% of the sale price on the realized gain. So, we're talking about 5 or 6% of 30%. Not exactly a huge boon to small business. In fact, the last time i crunched these figures, the loans backed by SBA were over 10 times what the reinvestment numbers worked out to be. IOW, gov't programs backing the loans of expanding or new small business were >10 times more valuable to growth and employment than were tax cuts.

Hmmm! Gov't more efficient than business. Who woulda thunk it?
The Professor

I would have guessed that much of the gain is sitting in relatively safe investments within companies, or to the extent dividended out due to the lower rate, in the hands of investors. It may be financing some high end spending there, but mostly its just sitting and accumulating.

More Econ 101 questions (and thanks in advance..) I'm guessing there are some benefits to the capital markets to having increased savings, but at the price of inflating stock prices, esp. large cap???? Also, how much capacity is there for increased marginal spending... its seems like it can't be all that much, and very targeted.

In short, the tax cut money is sitting in the brokerage account of a company or individual, and maybe its creating a few jobs for yacht manufactuers, but not a lot else, is my guess....

to defend a class of people that would fillet them for a dollar more of profit.

If education had a liberal slant to it, the unions would be prosperous and the Democrats would have 75% of the voting population as members.

I'm a teacher, and I can't understand why the Right is unhappy with American schools being liberal. But then its not the schools, its those teacher unions. (another topic)

because of what they might learn and think for themselves. Someone who is raised in a religious family might actually think for themselves and ask question's about spiritual matters they wouldn't be able to find the answers to and then they could doubt their spiritually and all that. This is what they're afraid of. Free thinkers to where they can't brainwash people.

P.S. I was being sarcastic.

The ones who are actually involved in the "real world," that is.

The Trust-Fundies mostly employ servants--& the occasional psychiatrist (or New Age counselor) to feed their neuroses.

They aren't paying salaries....are they???????? Hoarding their money is a better frame IMHO.

The economy should not depend on a wealthy's persons spending habits; or hiring habits. Their spending and hiring habits should depend on demand, not supply. Supply side economics gives them too much power over the working class. It's also self destructive; how can we buy goods and services with less money?

Anyone with money can create jobs.

There are basically two theories of thought that are often thrown around about this. Wealthy people need tax cuts to help them have capital to create jobs(trickle down), not so wealthy people need tax cuts to help stimulate transactions which will create demand which will start new business, encourage existing business to expand etc(basically trickle up).

In my opinion trickle down does not have the intended effect its suppose to. Lets say I own a widget factory and that factory is operating at 80% of capacity and I sell as many widgets as I produce with not much excess inventory. Uncle Sam comes along and gives me 200k. I can do a few different things with it:

I can take my 200k and hire a new employee and my factory will now be running at 85% of capacity, but if my widget demand stays nearly the same I've gained nothing.

I can buy a new machine which increased the productivity of 3 workers letting me fire the 4th team member. Net effect is I got 200k extra AND I was able to eliminate one salary/benefit expense and I can depreciate the machine from my taxes. In this scenario we actually lost a job.. now this might be beneficial if we could then lower the cost of widgets leading to longterm expansion.. but how often you do you run around seeing prices drop? Personally if I'm the owner and your still paying me the original widget price I'm pocketing the difference and saving it up to buy another machine :woohoo:.

I can sit on the money and wait to see what happens.

Many companies right now are sitting on their money, a lot of money.

If a company sees an opportunity to make money they will do it same as an investor, regardless of tax cuts. Its always been my personal opinion that the best way to stimulate an economy is to put more money in the hands of 'normal' people to spur and increase of transactions which will then hopefully snowball.

"I'm the Pope and my sister is the Virgin Mary!"

Hey, I said it, so it MUST be true, right?

They're creating jobs? Where? Shitty service industries? Certainly not in manufacturing or anywhere that provides a liveable wage against the continually rising cost of living. Certainly not enough jobs to cover the incoming workforce on a monthly basis; we've only covered the job churn 8 months out of 52. That's a pretty shitty track record.

The U6 unemployment rate (not the RW-sugarcoated 5.1% UR that shills like Neil Cavuto bounce around) is currently at 8.9%, down from the mid-9s that it's been most of Lancelot's presidency.

The average family income in real dollars has dropped since 1973. In fact, we also work more hours than our 1973 counterparts.

All giving tax cuts to the rich did was encourage them to quintuple their wealth while offshoring/inshoring/firing all of their workers. But hey, that 600 dollar pittance bought you that . . . well . . . groceries . . . didn't it?

If they won't it's time for the government to step in and fund some jobs programs.

and here's my personal story on that. In 1973 I was freshly discharged (6 months earlier) from the Marine Corps. I grew up in Detroit and went back there when I got out. I got hired at the Ford Wixom plant helping make TBirds. Mark 4's and Lincoln Town Cars. Anyhow, the pay for that job, in 1973 was about $8 per hour. Fast forward to 2005. Lifes twists and turns have led me to a job that I enjoy very much and makes great use of my natural skills and abilities. My pay? 11.75 per hour. So I'm probably working for less than what I made in 1973.......

I checked out this inflation calculator. I put in 1973 and 8 dollars, its 2005 adjusted for inflation(based of the conservative CPI) would be 35.32.

Let's also look at how far that wage took you, compared to now -

I'm guessing, with overtime, you took home about 18-20k a year.

In 1973, the price of an average home was $28,900. In other words, about 1 1/2 times your income. Most Americans were at about the 2:1 income/home price ratio back then.

The average American household income is 43 thousand dollars, changed about $3k in real dollars since 1973. The average home price is now about 170,000-180,000 dollars, over four times the average income.

This is just a small sample of how wages are truly not keeping up with inflation/cost of living. You toss in the tax burden, cars, school and other things . . . it's not a pretty picture for the middle class. Meanwhile, the rich are making out like gangbusters.

There is an American belief, IMHO, that goes something like this: I wannabe rich and when I get rich (win the Lottery)I sure don't want the government to tax me too much. Therefore, I support tax cuts for rich people.

This is pathetic, but I've lived long enough to see this phenomenon at work.

After all, we've seen for ourselves that any idiot can become president, just like they've been saying all along.

is flat out full of Bullshit. Rich people do not provide jobs. Jobs are provided mostly by small businesses that are borderline successful and make little money. Most money made is put right back into the business to keep it solvent. Everything these right wing whackos say they said in '92 and were proved decisively wrong. Why are they allowed to keep spouting off their complete bullshit with no one calling them on it. Under a Democratic Administration the USA had the greatest economic expansion in it's history by doing the exact opposite of what the right wing whackos say must be done. Since the whackos have gained power and put into place their idea of how American economics should be we have had the greatest economic turn around in history. How much more proof is needed to shut these a holes up?

They dont go spend all their money. Any tax savings they get most likely goes into investments in Real Estate, Wall Street stocks, govt bonds, banks. I dont see how that money goes into the economy to help with jobs. Giving money to the middle class and the poor would help the economy much more because more of that money would be spent at stores, small businesses, etc.

So basically, do you want money funneled to Wall Street investments or do you want money funneled to stores and small businesses.

or, at least one of them.....

He always likes to make the argument (as stated above) that "Rich people provide jobs", and he generally tops it off by saying "I never got a job from a poor person."

The ditto heads eat it up.....the belief is fostered that if you suck up enough to a rich person, then, somehow, someway, you too will become rich.

One of the freeper assholes I used to work with used to brag that sucking up to the boss was great because every once in a while, he would be invited up to his land to hunt (along with 20 or 30 others) and that if he gave the boss the "right" information (aka snitching) the boss would slip him "a fifty or maybe even a hunnert".

That was soooooooo pathetic......

he had some show on weekends here (probably syndicated, but not widely). I couldn't believe the venom this guy was spewing out. I figured he'd be taken for an idiot and not last long. Boy was I wrong.

He was touting that stuff back then. He told the old "Yacht Company" story: If the rich people buy yachts, it creates jobs for workers who make yachts. (And cons I know are fond of this logic. Twenty+ years of brainwashing, and it's accepted as fact.)

Well, yeah. Jobs for maybe a hundred or so people. The rest (and most) of the rich guys money is invested where it makes more money for him. Not creating jobs.

It is one of their favorite talking points.

and, yes, I've heard that one too.

It has become so engrained in freepers that it is accepted a gospel.

while I'm sure some small business owners are rich, I'm guessing that a majority of them are not...