Actually, "The Rich" Don't Create Jobs

[midlifebear]

TomCat84: There's are plenty of properties available along the Lake Havasu corridor in Arizona you can find from $79,000 to $350,000 at this very moment. It's not the Pacific, but it's a great place to live when the terrorists blow up Glen Canyon and Hoover Dams. You can even visit the authentic and old London Bridge next to the local shopping centers.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

That's nice, bigloadz, you think I'm retarded, can't read, can't calculate properly and still think you're making a point... a long, pointless post about frivolous, side rail bullshit, and not one comment or rebuttal that addresses the main point I made on this thread before starinvestor made a mention about libraries, I refuted quickly and then you ran with like it was the central point of this thread.

Once more, here is the REAL point I've been trying to make:
To help solve the problem with job creation in this country, we should start educating young kids as early as high school, through class electives, about how to start a business. Also, junior & community colleges should get together with neighborhood youth & community centers and formulate programs where they can provide the necessary services, classes & information to struggling adults who are interested in going into business for themselves.

Screw libraries, obscure Urban Dictionary entries made seven years ago off of a Chris Rock sketch, what you think you know as an IT person and all of the other nonsense. Although the library info is vaguely connected, none of this other stuff is really relevant to this discussion anyhow. You find grievance with my point? If so, address it... and no, disagreeing because people are "lazy", "have access to a library" or are within "driving distance to one" is not a valid answer. Or are you still planning to prove a meaningless point regarding national library access for the next two pages?

 

[Phoenix1714]

Of course the rich don't create jobs, despite this everybody seems to believe this.

 

[Cuddler]

Two spectators have come in and only commented on a single point, that I dont care enough to put forth new evidence. Both of which potentially misunderstanding what I said in regards to evidence for the effort I am putting into my responses.

at:

...
Once more, here is the REAL point I've been trying to make:
To help solve the problem with job creation in this country, we should start educating young kids as early as high school, through class electives, about how to start a business. Also, junior & community colleges should get together with neighborhood youth & community centers and formulate programs where they can provide the necessary services, classes & information to struggling adults who are interested in going into business for themselves.

Screw libraries, obscure Urban Dictionary entries made seven years ago off of a Chris Rock sketch, what you think you know as an IT person and all of the other nonsense. Although the library info is vaguely connected, none of this other stuff is really relevant to this discussion anyhow. You find grievance with my point? If so, address it... and no, disagreeing because people are "lazy", "have access to a library" or are within "driving distance to one" is not a valid answer. Or are you still planning to prove a meaningless point regarding national library access for the next two pages?

That

 

[Drifterwood]

Of course the rich don't create jobs, despite this everybody seems to believe this.

Pinky and Perky were the first pigs in space.

 

[vince]

In that case, I think the US tax rates for the rich should be tied to how many jobs they can prove they create. We've been told over and over again for years that the more profit they are allowed to hold onto, the more jobs they will create and that this is a proven fact.


Ok... you all should be progressive about it. The more jobs they can demonstratively create, the lower their taxes are. It's the natural next step of trickle down economics.

Let start with a rate of 50 percent for incomes of more than a million and 75 percent for personal incomes over 5 million. Every ten jobs you create, you save 1 percent on your taxes. Or some horrible formula like that. You'd either balance the budget or have full employment. Probably both.

 

[deleted213967]

Let start with a rate of 50 percent for incomes of more than a million and 75 percent for personal incomes over 5 million. Every ten jobs you create, you save 1 percent on your taxes. Or some horrible formula like that. You'd either balance the budget or have full employment. Probably both.

So, out of curiosity, how many FTE jobs does a billionaire create when he/she buys a richly-appointed 100-foot yacht?

 

[vince]

So, out of curiosity, how many FTE jobs does a billionaire create when he/she buys a richly-appointed 100-foot yacht?

Depends on the yacht. But on average, about 30 for one year. So he can save quite a bundle under my tax scheme.


No self respecting billionaire would settle for a 100 footer.

 

[deleted213967]

Depends on the yacht. But on average, about 30 for one year. So he can save quite a bundle under my tax scheme.


No self respecting billionaire would settle for a 100 footer.

I see far more job-creation potential in the enforcement of your scheme, presumably by the IRS (in the US).

Courts would also be busy with a flurry of additional litigation cases ("I created far more jobs than that! Oh no she didn't!", which would also mean more clerks, recorders, paralegal, judges, associates, partners, all middle-class-and-above jobs.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

In that case, I think the US tax rates for the rich should be tied to how many jobs they can prove they create.

I like the sound of that. :wink:

 

[deleted15807]

I like the sound of that. :wink:

And let's be clear U.S. jobs created. Not Philippine, Indian or Chinese jobs created. We could go Tea Party and say no illegal immigrant jobs :wink:

 

[vince]

I see far more job-creation potential in the enforcement of your scheme, presumably by the IRS (in the US).

Courts would also be busy with a flurry of additional litigation cases ("I created far more jobs than that! Oh no she didn't!", which would also mean more clerks, recorders, paralegal, judges, associates, partners, all middle-class-and-above jobs.

Well the parasites have to eat too and they will always be with us. But what the heck, a job's a job and they pay taxes too.

 

[Cuddler]

For those who prefer a fact-based reality:

Corporate Income Taxes, Profit, and Employment Performance of Canada

This study tracks 198 companies on the S&P/TSX composite from 2000 through 2009 and finds those companies—Canada's largest corporations—are making 50% more profit and paying 20% less tax than they did a decade ago.

However, in terms of job creation, they did not keep up with the average growth of employment in the economy as a whole. From 2005 to 2010, the number of employed Canadians rose 6% while the number of jobs created by the companies in the study grew by only 5%. In essence, the largest beneficiaries of corporate tax cuts are dragging down Canadian employment growth.​

 

[B_crackoff]

For those who prefer a fact-based reality:

Corporate Income Taxes, Profit, and Employment Performance of Canada

This study tracks 198 companies on the S&P/TSX composite from 2000 through 2009 and finds those companies—Canada's largest corporations—are making 50% more profit and paying 20% less tax than they did a decade ago.

However, in terms of job creation, they did not keep up with the average growth of employment in the economy as a whole. From 2005 to 2010, the number of employed Canadians rose 6% while the number of jobs created by the companies in the study grew by only 5%. In essence, the largest beneficiaries of corporate tax cuts are dragging down Canadian employment growth.
​

This has actually made me laugh! A hugely partisan website (leftist - calling themselves progressive) mangles the figures for political purpose - shock horror!

It doesn't bode well when certain of the figures don't add up, or the graph used doesn't correlate with the figures used! Of course, these mistakes are used to strengthen their own arguments.

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/si...rate Income Taxes, Profit, and Employment.pdf

The year 2000 total tax before earnings is $50.8, total tax $17.6, leaving total after tax of $37.1 ? 2009 TTBE is $74.5, TT $14., leaving TAT of $56.4? Don't think so. In fact all of the figures seem hellishly adrift.

The joker writing the report also seems shocked that a company not breaking even - wait for it - may not pay any taxes at all!!! Companies can also claim for - wait for it - the expenses of running & employing a business - unlike an individual (who of course gets the office, the equipment etc provided for free).

Of course, the author has also set his own time span. When we enter into the world of the time value of money - conveniently ignored - shock horror, we realise that both company, & personal allowances go up, so that even with a static profit, the share distributed in taxation would GO DOWN.

What do companies do with all these profits - there's no mention of how much is redistributed to the shareholder (conveniently ignored again), or how much is reinvested into R&D, plant & equipment, & competing against competition etc?

How much have excise duties generated? How much have ad valorem sales taxes generated?

The total after tax earnings have dropped 14% 2005-9, but they still employed 5% more people. Wow. Not that any of this guy's figures are reliable, because they don't even add up. There is no financial guru here!:wink:. And when did a company in its maturity phase, which all TSX companies are - having built up their products & services, compare to the hiring standards of less succesful companies? Mature companies mainly increase profits through higher efficiency rather than innovation.

However, the best mistake of all is the exclusion of any companies who either dropped out, or came into the TSX. It makes continued success it's arbiter of inclusion, ignoring all the companies from 2000 on who have failed.

The reason why Corporation taxes have dropped from 28%, to far lower, is that Canada does not live in a bubble. All leftists seem to want a globalised world & to support developing countries.

A function of this is that jobs, & companies, will relocate to those areas. You cannot be a globalist & a protectionist. Dropping Corp Tax rates is the only way to encourage businesses to remain, short of protectionist legislation. This in turn retains & creates employment so that PAYE, social, a valorem, & excise taxes can be collected.

Any argument that cutting taxes cuts jobs is only demonstrated in the public sector - & a lot of those aren't roles that we need to pay for, or should be measured in value & risk by comparison to the private sector.

Companies make & retain profit. Governments earn nothing & spend all they have, then borrow more off future generations.

 

[B_starinvestor]

Okay, I took the bait and read the links in the OP.

All I can say is.....HOLY FUKN KEE-RIST.

Here is one embarrassing excerpt of the 2nd link 'they don't create jobs, we do' from Sargon's (who doesn't read his own links) OP:

"If I had extra money I wouldn't just hire people to sit around and read the paper. And if I had more customers than I could handle that -- the revenue generated by meeting the additional demand from the extra customers -- is what would pay for employing more people to meet the demand. It is a pretty simple equation: you employ the right number of people to meet the demand your business has."

So that's the answer? Employ the right number of people to meet demand? I absolutely guarantee the author of the above quote has never, ever, ever run a business.

Jeez, how brilliant. Now, how many jobs does that create again?

There should be some kind of goddamn approval process before links can be posted in poli forum. This is embarrassing to read manufactured feces and outright fantasy BS like this.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

There should be some kind of goddamn approval process before links can be posted in poli forum. This is embarrassing to read manufactured feces and outright fantasy BS like this.

Why stop with links? Let's look at complete posts as well.
We could start with deleting all of yours. That alone would make this thread improve tremendously.

 

[deleted213967]

To be fair, all consumers, "rich" and "poor" (note the rhetorical annihilation of the Middle Class ) eventually create jobs.

The more disposable income, though, the higher the probability that the consumer's basket will include more services and more value-added goods:

A typical "poor" will more likely consume mass-produced goods made in capital-intensive facilities and/or in low-labor-cost countries.

A typical rich will consume more services (housekeepers, gardeners, masseuses, CPA, lawyers, ...) and hand-made goods, designed and sold (if not manufactured) in the US/EU.

A typical rich will also save/invest more, fostering investments that will create more jobs than they will destroy.

 

[deleted15807]

A typical rich will also save/invest more, fostering investments that will create more jobs than they will destroy.

Oh my Guicci that certainly is a load of unprovable dung. Tens of millions of jobs lost worldwide during the financial collapse thanks to lax to non-existent regulation championed exclusively by the rich. Are we to believe it was all worth it? And it isn't even over yet (for the little people) but the good times are way back for 'the rich'....

The Drought Is Over (at Least for C.E.O.’s)

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Oh my Guicci that certainly is a load of unprovable dung. Tens of millions of jobs lost worldwide during the financial collapse thanks to lax to non-existent regulation championed exclusively by the rich. Are we to believe it was all worth it? And it isn't even over yet (for the little people) but the good times are way back for 'the rich'....

The Drought Is Over (at Least for C.E.O.’s)

It's amazing what some people will just magically assume when they see someone with money, eh? :wink:

 

[B_crackoff]

A typical rich will also save/invest more, fostering investments that will create more jobs than they will destroy.

But not necessarily in the country that they live in/earn their living.

What is repellent are the rich who avoid most of their taxation through legal loopholes DELIBERATELY left in legislation.