The political knifes are drawn

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by skysidhe

spex

Here is a simple google search. Take it for what it's worth. If you don't like what it says, maybe you can find something to the contrary.

http://libertyworks.com/will-a-tax-h...an-fewer-jobs/

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content...owth-jobs.html
Also, I am a democrat. I voted for Clinton. The unemployment rate at the time was about half it is now. The country was able to afford higher taxes.

As far as individuals go. This is the tax burden people have to look forward to in a shaky economic climate.



In January, If the person making 50,000 is paying $605 more in taxes, it isn't hard to assume they will be spending less.

What's striking is the couple who make $50,000 will pay $2,105 more in taxes.

The dispute is about the taxes for the wealthy not the people making $50k. The Clinton era top bracket was 39.6%, Bush lowered it to 35%. Looking just at the effect of this change, if a small businessman nets $500k per year, and is married, his taxes will increase by $11,500. His net income for the amount above $250k would go from $162.5k to $151k. That's not counting his income from the first $250k he makes. Will he create jobs with this additional income? Who knows?

Looking at the big picture, this guy probably owns an investment property in Key West (tax protection). Every time he goes to check on his investment (vacation) it's a business expense, and the cost of his trip is not taxed. Wealthy people are able to hide income those sorts of ways.

The 1950s was a period of low unemployment and low inflation. From 1951 until 1963, income over $400k was taxed at 91% or 92%. I've heard the theory that because of this high tax, people reinvested in their business, through capital improvements and better standard of living for their employees. I don't believe that there is a causation of higher taxes on the wealthy and high unemployment. I believe that an increased disposable income for the middle class will increase jobs. Let's say the man in the example above owned a company that makes refridgerators. Instead of giving him the $11.5k, suppose that money is distributed to 23 middle class people, each of whom needs a refridgerator. That may increase the man's business enough that he would have to hire workers to keep up with the demand for his product.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I don't believe that there is a causation of higher taxes on the wealthy and high unemployment. I believe that an increased disposable income for the middle class will increase jobs. Let's say the man in the example above owned a company that makes refridgerators. Instead of giving him the $11.5k, suppose that money is distributed to 23 middle class people, each of whom needs a refridgerator. That may increase the man's business enough that he would have to hire workers to keep up with the demand for his product.

That's why it's silly to think that giving money to rich people makes jobs. To employers, jobs are expenses. They'll get by with as few as they can, no matter how good the economy is or how much cash they have on hand. The only way to get them to employ more people is to increase the money available to their customers, so a new hire is needed to handle enough business to offset the cost of their job.

That's why Ford paid his workers more than the prevailing wage - he figured he'd get his money back when they bought a car. It works on a national scale as well.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

That's why it's silly to think that giving money to rich people makes jobs.

Define "rich".

To employers, jobs are expenses. They'll get by with as few as they can, no matter how good the economy is or how much cash they have on hand.

Yea, that is how they make money. But the fact is that many would hire back people they let go if they had the capitol to do so.

The only way to get them to employ more people is to increase the money available to their customers, so a new hire is needed to handle enough business to offset the cost of their job.

Incresing money strickly on that basis in these times will not get people to spend more, they will save it or pay off bills, but I doubt they will spend it. Look at the boondogle infusions of cash in the last 12 years. There was no sudden splurge of economic activity.

That's why Ford paid his workers more than the prevailing wage - he figured he'd get his money back when they bought a car. It works on a national scale as well.

Wait... I thought you said you don't think "rich" people should have more money, and Ford was certainly among the rich of the time.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Yea, that is how they make money. But the fact is that many would hire back people they let go if they had the capitol to do so.

They have the capitol. US corporations are sitting on record amounts of capitol right now.

Incresing money strickly on that basis in these times will not get people to spend more, they will save it or pay off bills, but I doubt they will spend it. Look at the boondogle infusions of cash in the last 12 years. There was no sudden splurge of economic activity.

If you think the lack of activity resulting from those was impressive , it's nothing compared to the lack of activity from the Bush tax cuts. And even if people pay bills instead of spend, allowing people to pay off their bills reduces drag on the economy much better than letting corporations sit on even more capitol.

Wait... I thought you said you don't think "rich" people should have more money, and Ford was certainly among the rich of the time.

And giving money to Henry Ford would have been silly. But he understood that in his own mini-economy, the best way to stimulate it was to give money to its poor. If he'd given himself and his executives raises with that money, it wouldn't have grown the company nearly the same amount.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

They have the capitol. US corporations are sitting on record amounts of capitol right now.If you think the lack of activity resulting from those was impressive , it's nothing compared to the lack of activity from the Bush tax cuts. And even if people pay bills instead of spend, allowing people to pay off their bills reduces drag on the economy much better than letting corporations sit on even more capitol.

SO, taking money away from people who earned it and giving it to the government is your solution? Because the government does such a great job spending our money better than we can?

And giving money to Henry Ford would have been silly. But he understood that in his own mini-economy, the best way to stimulate it was to give money to its poor. If he'd given himself and his executives raises with that money, it wouldn't have grown the company nearly the same amount.

And he did a lot of great stuff for the poor and he paid for it himself. He did not give it to the government and expect them to do it, he did it.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

SO, taking money away from people who earned it and giving it to the government is your solution? Because the government does such a great job spending our money better than we can?

Hey, it works for China. Look at their economy!

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by SamIam

Hey, it works for China. Look at their economy!

Yea, they are doing great! They have no poverty, no pollution, eveyone has access to public trasportation, and they all have The Little Red Book!