Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because we have never seen a poor person hire someone.
In this economy rich people aren't hire very many people either unless they are low wage jobs or the person happens to be in Malaysia, Viet Nam, China, Brazil, on some other low wage emerging market country.
The reality that 99.999999999% of all liberals have never been able to comprehend is that raising taxes has never resulted in an increase in tax revenue for the taxing entity.
But they still believe otherwise; if their mantra really worked, none of the states they've dominated polituically for 40+ years (and we all know which ones they are) would be drowning in debt.
And the relevance is? How many people are the rich hiring now? We are at the lowest tax rates in 70 years, where are the jobs?
Plenty.
My daughter is 19 years old and just finished her 1st year of college.
She is going to be in biological research, so she has already started searching for the company the she would like to work for once she has her degree.
She was absolutely astounded at the number of job openings at research companies. At all levels.
She asked why so many people were unemployed if there are so many jobs.
Clinton also cut taxes.Actually he cut capital gains taxes and raised social security taxes.
Tax cuts for the rich and balanced the budget on the backs of the elderly. That was Clinton and the Democrats for ya.
And the economic growth under Clinton was almost all because of the World Wide Web. A private sector invention. And the World Wide Web had little to no government interference at the time. Probabaly the only smart thing Clinton did.
In this economy rich people aren't hire very many people either unless they are low wage jobs or the person happens to be in Malaysia, Viet Nam, China, Brazil, on some other low wage emerging market country.
They had that option when Clinton and Bush were Presidents. Yet unemployment averaged around 4% when those guys were in office.
Maybe, just maybe, it is because of the current President and the things he does to make hiring people more expensive.
Imagine your an evil rich person who hires and fires people at an evil private company.
You want to tax the bejeezus out of this awful rich guy because its not fair that he has so much money.
But you also want him not to pick up and move his company to a low tax country like Singapore because those fat union jobs (and union due$) would disappear too, thus making the union bosses less powerful.
Can't you see the bind Mr. evil entrepreneur is in?
Maybe in his cold, black heart there is a spark of warmth. Perhaps he would like to remain in New York or California but the 35% corporate tax rate (passed by liberals in the state legislature who receive massive campaign funds from unions) makes it impossible for him to compete with other companies. (I know in your utopian world there is no economic competition and the State decides which favored company shall prevail, but bear with me...)
Why not lower taxes a bit so he can bring those jobs back to America. Sure that would be a little less money with which the Democratic party can play with and dole out to favored special interests but why chase him away with taxes?
Way too over simplistic to make a point.
Most businesses pay way less than a 35% straight tax on income. Moving jobs for manufacturing has occurred over a thirty year period. The primary reason is labor costs, not tax cost. Tax rate reductions do not result in increased hiring, only demand can do that. To increase demand, the macro economy must be growing form a disposable income, or even on an export basis.
A unique test of this philosophy can be seen during the past few years. When there was a special time period where multinationals were allowed to repatriate foreign profits back to the US for only 5%, many companies did just that. Only a modest number of jobs were boldly attributed to the actions, in spite of rosey predictions. Their forecasts were far too grand, because they lost sight of how capitalism works.
A case for lower taxes could definitely be made for smaller businesses, that can't play all the games bigger companies can. But the fact remains, Ford and other companies moved production to Mexico in some cases to make more money. Then, they raised car prices. Lower their taxes and nothing happens.
Many foreign car makers, as well as domestic brands, are accelerating the pace of expansion within the United States. So tax is not a deterrent.
I've long been saddened by my fellow Conservatives inability to understand the capitalistic economy we live in. This started circa Reagan's time. But the reasons for the lack of understanding go well beyond intelligence. Companies lobby for tax changes, loopholes, whatever. To gain support, voters must be told that rich people hire workers when taxes go down. Doesn't happen.
Fact is, companies thrive when the consumer spending drives the economic growth. For the liberals: No, this doesn't mean raising taxes means more revenue. At some point, you'll continue to lose jobs.
The trend in manufacturing in the United States is very positive, and is growing. However, the goods have changed. Technology allows mature economies to pass off buggy whip construction to less mature economies, and frees up the United States for other things. This is the reason we have far less of our workforce involved in agriculture and putting bumpers on cars.
Lower tax rates work well when you direct them towards income levels that spend a proportionately higher amount of their income. When that happens, the economy grows, thus creating more jobs, and more profits for those that create them. This is pretty fundamental. If I'm making $1 million a year, and you cut my taxes by 25%, I say Thanks. When you ask me why I didn't hire more people because my taxes went down, I say "You're not that sharp are you?"
Actually, I'd be nicer and state "Why would I do that?"
Back in their day unions tended to raise wages for all workers, if employers didn't pay fair wages employees would form a union or move off and take a job where there was a union and better wages.
Today the employers have taken the work to employees that don't know better and where they are just happy to have a paycheck, mostly overseas. Globalization has weakened unions and allowed employers to pay lower wages for many jobs that remained in this country. The only thing wrong with America today is that it is being built by the low bidder.
The problem the wealthy face today, is how do they destroy the unions that still do the work that has to be done locally? How do you undercut pay to teachers, government employees, skilled workers, road crews, the building trades and the 'hands on' people that fix the things around us? How do you lower the pay to jobs that you cannot ship off to another country?
That "problem" is what is keeping domestic job creation at a standstill. They don't want to begin creating new jobs while there are reminders of what workers used to make. In their master plan public unions have to go next. If you can break the remaining unions you can use that leverage to lower wages across the board.
They keep saying that unions and labor costs are destroying business, but I don't buy that. At a point where they are booking record profits, where the wealth of America is being concentrated with fewer and fewer people they claim they are about to fail, REALLY?. If things are so bad for the elite of America why the record profits? Why are they taking so much of the wealth? 30 years of static wages for the middle while those at the top see income increases amounting to 400%. 25% now controls 88% of the wealth today.
It is not the unions, it is not the labor costs, and it is not regulation creating this crisis. The wealthy and their GREED are the problem. We are being held hostage by a bunch of GREEDY UNPATRIOTIC SOB's that are never satisfied and would rather destroy this country than let a bit of that wealth they control escape their grasp. The "risk takers" don't risk anything anymore, they demand guaranteed returns. Sadly, the jobs they have shipped away won't be back until they have their way, until they have all of us working at 3rd world wages.
I would disagree when you look at countries around the and looks at % of public debt in relation to GDP the United States is way down the list. There are countries like Japan that have a much higher % of debt to GDP.
Commerce is driven by DEMAND. And employment has a direct effect on demand.
In every vibrant economy in the world it's the growth of the middle class that fuels the success of the economies. The reason the American economy is in the malaise it's in is one, corporations are investing on other parts of the world because labor is cheaper and economic growth is higher and two, for the last 30 years the majority of the income growth in this country has been by the top 20%.
Our current malaise is due to government infestation in and union thug poisoning of the private sector.
Period.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
