The True Job Creators

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-01/raise-taxes-on-the-rich-to-reward-job-creators-commentary-by-nick-hanauer.html

 

 

It is a tenet of American economic beliefs, and an article of faith for Republicans that is seldom contested by Democrats: If taxes are raised on the rich, job creation will stop.

Trouble is, sometimes the things that we know to be true are dead wrong. For the larger part of human history, for example, people were sure that the sun circles the Earth and that we are at the center of the universe. It doesn’t, and we aren’t. The conventional wisdom that the rich and businesses are our nation’s “job creators” is every bit as false.

I’m a very rich person. As an entrepreneur and venture capitalist, I’ve started or helped get off the ground dozens of companies in industries including manufacturing, retail, medical services, the Internet and software. I founded the Internet media company aQuantive Inc., which was acquired by Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) in 2007 for $6.4 billion. I was also the first non-family investor in Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN)

 

So true. That our political debates are not based on this is a testament to the fact of how our politicians of both parties are bought lock, stock and barrel by the wealthy. They control the language that we use, the rhetoric we hear and the outcome of the political process to a large degree.

[GG]

http://www.bloomberg...ck-hanauer.html

 

 

 

 

So true. That our political debates are not based on this is a testament to the fact of how our politicians of both parties are bought lock, stock and barrel by the wealthy. They control the language that we use, the rhetoric we hear and the outcome of the political process to a large degree.

 

He's an idiot just like you are. He can feel very good about himself and distort numbers, because for fat cats like him & Warren Buffet, capital gains make up a huge proportion of income taxes, so their rates are very low. Plus, as a venture capital investor, he can shield a lot of his income by claiming the losses on his dogs. Chances are that he's living off the fat of his early Amazon investment, which he can sell at a tidy profit at very low tax rates and support a comfy lifestyle.

 

Never mind the truism that raising rates on the rich has never generated the levels of income that optimists hope to squeeze out. Maybe your hero should also learn financial history.

[Chef Jim]

I just love the left. All rich people are evil. Especially ones that brag how many billions they have and that their most expensive toy is their private plane. That is of course until they say something that the left believes.

[Alaska Darin]

http://www.bloomberg...ck-hanauer.html

 

 

 

 

So true. That our political debates are not based on this is a testament to the fact of how our politicians of both parties are bought lock, stock and barrel by the wealthy. They control the language that we use, the rhetoric we hear and the outcome of the political process to a large degree.

You really do have your very own special brand of stupid. You should find someone to help you fill out the patent forms.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

He's an idiot just like you are. He can feel very good about himself and distort numbers, because for fat cats like him & Warren Buffet, capital gains make up a huge proportion of income taxes, so their rates are very low. Plus, as a venture capital investor, he can shield a lot of his income by claiming the losses on his dogs. Chances are that he's living off the fat of his early Amazon investment, which he can sell at a tidy profit at very low tax rates and support a comfy lifestyle.

 

Never mind the truism that raising rates on the rich has never generated the levels of income that optimists hope to squeeze out. Maybe your hero should also learn financial history.

Wow! Way to avoid the main point! But I guess when you know he's--and I'm--right you have to start throwing out bs. Yes, a consumer driven economy needs CONSUMERS! Duh!

 

 

Stick to the point stupid, Consumers create jobs!

 

I just love the left. All rich people are evil. Especially ones that brag how many billions they have and that their most expensive toy is their private plane. That is of course until they say something that the left believes.

How about adding something that deals with the topic instead of making up garbage and throwing out tired slogans like "All Rich People Are Evil." I never said anything of the kind and it just shows how ignorant you are that you have to put false words in my mouth. You are pathetic

 

You really do have your very own special brand of stupid. You should find someone to help you fill out the patent forms.

At least you've given up trying to make serious points. Too bad, it was so much fun laughing at your inane "logic"

[RkFast]

http://www.bloomberg...ck-hanauer.html

 

 

 

 

So true. That our political debates are not based on this is a testament to the fact of how our politicians of both parties are bought lock, stock and barrel by the wealthy. They control the language that we use, the rhetoric we hear and the outcome of the political process to a large degree.

 

bull ****.....its not the "1%" putting geniues like Maxine Waters, Patti Murray and Charles Rangel into office year after year.

Edited December 20, 2011 by RkFast

[DC Tom]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-01/raise-taxes-on-the-rich-to-reward-job-creators-commentary-by-nick-hanauer.html

 

 

 

 

So true. That our political debates are not based on this is a testament to the fact of how our politicians of both parties are bought lock, stock and barrel by the wealthy. They control the language that we use, the rhetoric we hear and the outcome of the political process to a large degree.

 

 

I can't decide if my favorite part is where he says "I'm just like everyone else, except for my plane" (in other words, "consumers run the economy, I'm a conspicuous consumer, so I should have the **** taxed out of me"), or that you accept everything he says at face value while bitching about how the rich control language, rhetoric, and outcome.

 

You are a true phenom.

[Alaska Darin]

At least you've given up trying to make serious points. Too bad, it was so much fun laughing at your inane "logic"

Like you'd be able to tell if someone was making a serious point.

 

It is rather humorous watching you parrot the insults others have thrown at you. Took you long enough. I guess your minimal cranial capacity can only have so many "catch phrases" banging into each other at any given time.

[Jauronimo]

Wow! Way to avoid the main point! But I guess when you know he's--and I'm--right you have to start throwing out bs. Yes, a consumer driven economy needs CONSUMERS! Duh!

 

 

Stick to the point stupid, Consumers create jobs!

 

 

How about adding something that deals with the topic instead of making up garbage and throwing out tired slogans like "All Rich People Are Evil." I never said anything of the kind and it just shows how ignorant you are that you have to put false words in my mouth. You are pathetic

 

 

At least you've given up trying to make serious points. Too bad, it was so much fun laughing at your inane "logic"

What you and the author of that article seem to forget is how do you arrive at a healthy consumer base with wads of disposable income to spend? Does simply raising taxes on the rich provide middle class Americans with more disposable income? Of course it doesn't. So now we come full circle and realize that in order to sustain a healthy consumer base, consumers must have JOBS. It seems this grand theory now rests upon the idea that consumer spending creates jobs, but jobs create consumer spending. Brilliant. If jobs are created in response to consumer spending, and consumers currently spend far more than they earn, and the government subsidizes those who don't earn and allows them to join the spending spree, then why do we sit around ~7.5%-8% unemployment?

 

Heaping taxes on the upper class does sound like a great way to create jobs, though. Jobs in China, Mexico, Vietnam, Indonesia...

[DC Tom]

Like you'd be able to tell if someone was making a serious point.

 

It is rather humorous watching you parrot the insults others have thrown at you. Took you long enough. I guess your minimal cranial capacity can only have so many "catch phrases" banging into each other at any given time.

 

He's doing his part, creating jobs in the special education sector. How many jobs have you created today?

[TPS]

I guess it's a hard concept to understand. When you create an idea or product, you only stay in business (and create jobs) if it sells. The point made is that for the past 30 years the nation was sold a bill of goods called supply-side economics, which was fine if the focus was to lower business taxes and costs, but it was used mainly to lower taxes on personal income of the wealthy.

 

Yes, taxing businesses adds to costs. However, the argument made is that taxing personal income of millionaires, of which 99.99% are not individual (defined as sole proprietor for tax purposes) business owners, has very little impact on job creation. No corporation reduces production because the top tax rate on the income of its managers, BoDs, bondholders, or shareholders is increased.

[B-Large]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-01/raise-taxes-on-the-rich-to-reward-job-creators-commentary-by-nick-hanauer.html

 

 

 

 

So true. That our political debates are not based on this is a testament to the fact of how our politicians of both parties are bought lock, stock and barrel by the wealthy. They control the language that we use, the rhetoric we hear and the outcome of the political process to a large degree.

 

I have maintained for a long time that Government eventually becomes the great Lever of the people with the resources to use it for their own gain. So, if Government is the Great Lever for the rich, wouldn't a very, very limited government be very highly desirable?

 

The American masses have ALWAYS had the power in this country... they have just become lazy or distracted from the basic happenings of commerce and economics.

 

- If you buy stuff that your neighbor produces, maybe he hires your kid and improves your neighboorhood and community... in short, the money build wealth and expansion for Americans in their communities.

 

but here is where we are today:

 

- for the most part, We want Cheap, and don't care how we get it. Alot of people hate Walmart, but those people are the very ones that have helped make the Waltons mutli-billionaires many times over. Buying Junk made in another country, just beacuse of price point is probably just flowing money into the pockets of the middle man, and that middle mans feels no obligation to reivest in people or commuinities....

 

You see Government has very little control over making citizens propoerous or not- in fact they are more likely to set public policy to help the Waltons, not average Americans. I am getting tired of the "poor us, bad companies" mantra... instead of bitching, up up of you fat Americans buts and support American again with your dollars...

Edited December 20, 2011 by B-Large

[RkFast]

I have maintained for a long time that Government eventually becomes the great Lever of the people with the resources to use it for their own gain. So, if Government is the Great Lever for the rich, wouldn't a very, very limited government be very highly desirable?

 

The American masses have ALWAYS had the power in this country... they have just become lazy or distracted from the basic happenings of commerce and economics.

 

- If you buy stuff that your neighbor produces, maybe he hires your kid and improves your neighboorhood and community... in short, the money build wealth and expansion for Americans in their communities.

 

but here is where we are today:

 

- for the most part, We want Cheap, and don't care how we get it. Alot of people hate Walmart, but those people are the very ones that have helped make the Waltons mutli-billionaires many times over. Buying Junk made in another country, just beacuse of price point is probably just flowing money into the pockets of the middle man, and that middle mans feels no obligation to reivest in people or commuinities....

 

You see Government has very little control over making citizens propoerous or not- in fact they are more likely to set public policy to help the Waltons, not average Americans. I am getting tired of the "poor us, bad companies" mantra... instead of bitching, up up of you fat Americans buts and support American again with your dollars...

 

 

Yeah, but then the American product has to be superior in the marketplace.

 

Id LOVE to own a Chevrolet, but compared to my Japanese-made Honda, they are absolute ****.

[TPS]

I have maintained for a long time that Government eventually becomes the great Lever of the people with the resources to use it for their own gain. So, if Government is the Great Lever for the rich, wouldn't a very, very limited government be very highly desirable?

 

The American masses have ALWAYS had the power in this country... they have just become lazy or distracted from the basic happenings of commerce and economics.

 

- If you buy stuff that your neighbor produces, maybe he hires your kid and improves your neighboorhood and community... in short, the money build wealth and expansion for Americans in their communities.

 

but here is where we are today:

 

- for the most part, We want Cheap, and don't care how we get it. Alot of people hate Walmart, but those people are the very ones that have helped make the Waltons mutli-billionaires many times over. Buying Junk made in another country, just beacuse of price point is probably just flowing money into the pockets of the middle man, and that middle mans feels no obligation to reivest in people or commuinities....

 

You see Government has very little control over making citizens propoerous or not- in fact they are more likely to set public policy to help the Waltons, not average Americans. I am getting tired of the "poor us, bad companies" mantra... instead of bitching, up up of you fat Americans buts and support American again with your dollars...

kind of a chicken-egg issue here. When the US went through de-industrialization and shipped high-wage jobs overseas, those who had to take lower paying service sector jobs didn't have much of a choice but to buy cheap Walmart stuff.

 

In the long term growth is mainly a function of technological change--you want to provide incentives for R&D, innovation, etc; in the shorter term, growth is a function of demand. Giving the top 1% a tax cut doesn't stimulate technological change nor does it increase demand in the way an equivalent ($ for $) tax cut to the bottom 80% would. Everything else is rhetoric...

[DC Tom]

Yeah, but then the American product has to be superior in the marketplace.

 

Id LOVE to own a Mexican-made American Chevrolet, but compared to my Japanese-madeCanadian-made Japanese Honda, they are absolute ****.

 

 

Fixed.

[Jauronimo]

I guess it's a hard concept to understand. When you create an idea or product, you only stay in business (and create jobs) if it sells. The point made is that for the past 30 years the nation was sold a bill of goods called supply-side economics, which was fine if the focus was to lower business taxes and costs, but it was used mainly to lower taxes on personal income of the wealthy.

 

Yes, taxing businesses adds to costs. However, the argument made is that taxing personal income of millionaires, of which 99.99% are not individual (defined as sole proprietor for tax purposes) business owners, has very little impact on job creation. No corporation reduces production because the top tax rate on the income of its managers, BoDs, bondholders, or shareholders is increased.

Not directly, but the resulting decline in investment may have some adverse affects on production and growth.

[B-Large]

Yeah, but then the American product has to be superior in the marketplace.

 

Id LOVE to own a Chevrolet, but compared to my Japanese-made Honda, they are absolute ****.

 

well, you have me red-handed there.. my Civic, 125K and never a repair other than Timing Belt, Brakes and Tires.... and I think one CV Joint Boot, whatever that is.

[TPS]

Not directly, but the resulting decline in investment may have some adverse affects on production and growth.

Do you mean "financial" investment or actual business spending?

If business spending, then I'd disagree; if financial, yes there would be less money flowing into stocks and bonds, which might have a wealth effect on spending.

[DaveinElma]

kind of a chicken-egg issue here. When the US went through de-industrialization and shipped high-wage jobs overseas, those who had to take lower paying service sector jobs didn't have much of a choice but to buy cheap Walmart stuff.

 

In the long term growth is mainly a function of technological change--you want to provide incentives for R&D, innovation, etc; in the shorter term, growth is a function of demand. Giving the top 1% a tax cut doesn't stimulate technological change nor does it increase demand in the way an equivalent ($ for $) tax cut to the bottom 80% would. Everything else is rhetoric...

 

Most of the bottom 80 percent already arent paying taxes.

[3rdnlng]

Do you mean "financial" investment or actual business spending?

If business spending, then I'd disagree; if financial, yes there would be less money flowing into stocks and bonds, which might have a wealth effect on spending.

 

 

What if all corporate income tax was eliminated? Wouldn't that funnel capital to stockholders or allow the corporation to spend more on R&D or capital improvements? The stockholder would eventually pay more taxes on more money earned or the company would spend it on creating jobs. Sounds simplistic but makes sense to me. Wouldn't this tend to make more companies want to locate their headquarters in this country?