Higher taxes stymie job creation

Dec 18, 2010
18,689
499
91
www.countrylifenet.com
#1
Taxing the rich would prevent job creation, and here is the reason why:

One example: An Asian Indian I know, he came to the United States legally, got a bachelors degree in engineering - this was in the early 1980s.

Now he owns two factories and employees several hundred people. If he had been taxed at 70% - 90% he would not have had the money to reinvest. Those new jobs would not have been created as the money would have been in the hands of the government. The employees get full benefits such as health insurance, vacation, 401k, paid holidays.... and this is not a union job.

There are part of the one 1% who create jobs. When was the last time you had a payroll of $100,000 a week? That is how much one company I worked for paid out in wages along every week.

The question is, how would you tax the 1% at 70% - 90%, but still allow those people to create jobs?

Or maybe not tax the job creators and jus tax people who build wealth through stocks and bonds? Then again, that would prevent people from investing. If someone is going to be taxed at 70%, why would they risk investing in a start up comapny?

One of the benefits of investing in a start up is big risk, big reward. What would happen when the government takes 70% of that reward?

Even Forbes says lower taxes helps create jobs:

Trump's Tax Cut Leads To Doubling Of Job Growth In Low-Tax States Vs. High-Tax

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckd...-of-job-growth-in-low-tax-states-vs-high-tax/
In the first five months of 2018, the rate of nonfarm private sector job growth in the ten most-populous low-tax states doubled that of their five high-tax counterparts. This is a strong departure from the job growth seen in 2016 and 2017 where there was no appreciable difference in the rate of employment growth among the 15 most-populous states.

[...]

Advocates for larger government, higher taxes and more red tape maintain that these have little to no negative effect on the economy. Reality, in the form of economic data collected and reported by the federal government, indicates otherwise.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
60,185
1,435
126
#2
Taxing the rich would prevent job creation, and here is the reason why:

One example: An Asian Indian I know, he came to the United States legally, got a bachelors degree in engineering - this was in the early 1980s.

Now he owns two factories and employees several hundred people. If he had been taxed at 70% - 90% he would not have had the money to reinvest. Those new jobs would not have been created as the money would have been in the hands of the government. The employees get full benefits such as health insurance, vacation, 401k, paid holidays.... and this is not a union job.

There are part of the one 1% who create jobs. When was the last time you had a payroll of $100,000 a week? That is how much one company I worked for paid out in wages along every week.

The question is, how would you tax the 1% at 70% - 90%, but still allow those people to create jobs?

Or maybe not tax the job creators and jus tax people who build wealth through stocks and bonds? Then again, that would prevent people from investing. If someone is going to be taxed at 70%, why would they risk investing in a start up comapny?

One of the benefits of investing in a start up is big risk, big reward. What would happen when the government takes 70% of that reward?
There is little evidence that tax cuts for the rich improve job growth. For example, after Bush hugely cut taxes for the rich job growth was much slower than it was for Clinton or Obama who both raised taxes on the rich.

If what you’re saying is true we should have seen the opposite. Why didn’t we?

Even Forbes says lower taxes helps create jobs:

Trump's Tax Cut Leads To Doubling Of Job Growth In Low-Tax States Vs. High-Tax

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckd...-of-job-growth-in-low-tax-states-vs-high-tax/
Forbes is not saying anything, that is an editorial piece from an ultra right wing think tank.
 

DarthKyrie

Senior member
Jul 11, 2016
267
143
96
#3
Consumers are the job creators you dumbass. In order for there to be a need for a supply of something, there needs to be a demand for said something.
 
Feb 5, 2006
32,949
155
126
#4
Trickle down lies aren't selling anymore, try harder. We already had 70+ % top tax rates and business investment was fine, which makes sense, since it's tax deductible.
 
Sep 5, 2000
24,911
321
126
#5
the guy doesnt even understand how and when people are able to write shit off for business in one thought train and in the other thought train he talks about how much he writes off for his retard farm. You cant have a more broken brain then this guy.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
47,076
469
126
#6
The entire premise of the thread is specious. "Taxation" isn't just a grab all. Investments in business operations would be counted differently than personally derived income. If the rules are changed then like every other time business practices will change as well. We're also not talking about state taxes, but Federal. If individuals want to move to Europe, pay their taxes or be subject to Trump's favorite taxes such as those on imports then so be it.

Using states where there are 50 different rates and rules exist is apple to oranges.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
50,817
1,319
126
#7
Consumers are the job creators you dumbass. In order for there to be a need for a supply of something, there needs to be a demand for said something.
Just loan them the money. When it gets to the point where they can't pay it's on the entities who bought the securities you created to finance it in the first place. When it turns into a liquidity crisis you can buy distressed financial entities for a song, like Mnuchin bought IndyMac.

The losers? Fuck the losers. If God didn't want 'em to be fucked he wouldn't have made it so easy.
 

Indus

Diamond Member
May 11, 2002
4,600
317
136
#9
70% is too low. We need 90% like FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon.

Best time in America economically till we got addicted on foreign oil and the Oil Crisis of the 70's hit.
 

DarthKyrie

Senior member
Jul 11, 2016
267
143
96
#10
Just loan them the money. When it gets to the point where they can't pay it's on the entities who bought the securities you created to finance it in the first place. When it turns into a liquidity crisis you can buy distressed financial entities for a song, like Mnuchin bought IndyMac.

The losers? Fuck the losers. If God didn't want 'em to be fucked he wouldn't have made it so easy.
It's almost like these idiots don't understand very basic economics, I think I was taught this stuff in 7th or 8th grade. I didn't realize that supply and demand was such a difficult subject for some people. It seems like the OP doesn't realize our economy is demand-based and not supply based like the former USSR.
 
Sep 5, 2000
24,911
321
126
#11
It's almost like these idiots don't understand very basic economics, I think I was taught this stuff in 7th or 8th grade. I didn't realize that supply and demand was such a difficult subject for some people. It seems like the OP doesn't realize our economy is demand-based and not supply based like the former USSR.
This is the average 80 iq rural white outraged man. It would be funny if it wasnt so damaging to just about everything.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
50,817
1,319
126
#13
Thats an opinion article you fucking simpleton.
It's obvious the guy is pushing an agenda when this is the single criteria used to define a "Low tax state"-

The ten most-populous low-tax states as determined by federal SALT deductions are: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and Washington.
That's an intentionally misleading premise. It doesn't fairly define "Low tax state" at all because it doesn't consider all taxes. Plug that list of states in to the list of states here to see how it's bullshit-

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-highest-lowest-tax-burden/20494/
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
74,217
276
126
#14
Any day now op you'll get your trickle down pie. Just hold your breath while you wait.
 
Feb 16, 2005
13,202
202
136
#15
go sell trickle down some place else, the rest of us are getting sick of being pissed on, and having morons like you tell us it's rain
 
Feb 26, 2006
51,184
165
126
#16
Trickle down lies aren't selling anymore, try harder. We already had 70+ % top tax rates and business investment was fine, which makes sense, since it's tax deductible.
Yep. The USA had its biggest expansions with top tax rates of 70-90%. (not that people actually paid those rates by the time they were done with write-offs and such)

I still haven't seen any rich people giving away all their money to become impoverished because the taxes are better...
 

PixelSquish

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2013
6,152
32
126
#17
How can Texashiker hate high top marginal tax rates. Fred Trump made his mark during those years. He loves that family.
 
Oct 6, 2009
22,226
720
126
#18
What a dumbass. Money reinvested into the company is not taxed. Raising taxes actually encourages reinvestment. So will you admit your mistake and stop believing the opposite of truth in this case? Or just keep on keeping on being ignorant?
 
Feb 4, 2009
19,094
408
126
#19
Is Briebert running something about MAGA men & smarts?
I think TH claimed to be super beyond normal intelligence too this week. Conincidence or some kind of right wing programming?
I don’t think they are the same guy.
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
6,118
81
126
#20
As if we didn't just witness tax cuts to the "jerb creators" go to stock buybacks instead of creating jobs.
 

MixMasterTang

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2001
3,048
17
91
#21
OP is full of fail, I almost feel bad for his severe lack of understanding but it seems like he doesn't really want to understand just rant away.
 
Dec 18, 2010
18,689
499
91
www.countrylifenet.com
#22
What a dumbass. Money reinvested into the company is not taxed. Raising taxes actually encourages reinvestment. So will you admit your mistake and stop believing the opposite of truth in this case? Or just keep on keeping on being ignorant?
How is someone supposed to have money to reinvest when profits are taxed at 70% - 90%?

A lot of people like to bring up the era when the super rich were taxed at upwards to 90%. At that time it was the government creating jobs.

World War II
Interstate highway system
Dam projects
Rural electrification project

When we were wrapping up the nation building, we needed to create jobs in the private sector. So in way it makes sense to drop the tax rate.

Let's say the government taxed the super rich at 90% again. What would the money be spent on?

Personally, I would like to see our highways upgraded, and super fast rail systems put into place. Maybe a monorail going from one densely populated area to another? Such as monorail system that follows interstate 10 along the gulf coast? Then again, how many people would use it?

Then again, who is going to build the factories? If a factory owner is going to get taxed at a high rate, why build a factory here? Why not build a factory in Mexico and import?
 
Jul 20, 2001
53,932
829
126
#23
Let's say the government taxed the super rich at 90% again. What would the money be spent on?
We could use the tax money to pay back the money the wealthy lent us in lieu of paying taxes. The conservative borrow and spend policy came about because conservatives wanted tax cuts and corporate welfare so they cut taxes on the wealthy and then borrowed money from the wealthy in order to provide welfare for the wealthy. Time for the wealthy to get off the dole.
 
May 15, 2000
23,319
430
126
#24
How is someone supposed to have money to reinvest when profits are taxed at 70% - 90%?

A lot of people like to bring up the era when the super rich were taxed at upwards to 90%. At that time it was the government creating jobs.

World War II
Interstate highway system
Dam projects
Rural electrification project

When we were wrapping up the nation building, we needed to create jobs in the private sector. So in way it makes sense to drop the tax rate.

Let's say the government taxed the super rich at 90% again. What would the money be spent on?

Personally, I would like to see our highways upgraded, and super fast rail systems put into place. Maybe a monorail going from one densely populated area to another? Such as monorail system that follows interstate 10 along the gulf coast? Then again, how many people would use it?

Then again, who is going to build the factories? If a factory owner is going to get taxed at a high rate, why build a factory here? Why not build a factory in Mexico and import?
I don't think you could be any dumber. Seriously guy, you are one stupid mother fucker!

First off, taxes are on profit, therefore if one were to reinvest into their company it would mean that they have less profits to tax and it would most likely lower their tax burden.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
50,817
1,319
126
#25
How is someone supposed to have money to reinvest when profits are taxed at 70% - 90%?
Business taxes & personal income taxes are not the same thing. Nobody has suggested business taxes should be raised to 70%. That's the part you're missing. When ownership reinvests profit in the business, they pay only business taxes, not personal income taxes.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS