Higher taxes stymie job creation

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

uclaLabrat

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2007
4,043
61
91
#26
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.
Truth, it's actually the opposite effect as the OP claimed; tr higher taxes actually encourage higher business investment as any money taken out as profit is heavily taxed. Therefore, it makes much more sense to reinvest wherever possible.

Higher tax rates would have no impact on reinvestment, because only profits are taxed. Business investments dont count as profits.
 
Dec 18, 2010
18,757
651
106
www.countrylifenet.com
#27
Higher tax rates would have no impact on reinvestment, because only profits are taxed. Business investments dont count as profits.
You have to have profits to reinvest right? The money does not magically appear.

Or maybe you are thinking about writing reinvestment off federal taxes?
 

uclaLabrat

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2007
4,043
61
91
#28
How is someone supposed to have money to reinvest when profits are taxed at 70% - 90%?
You've missed the entire point; you dont reinvest profits. Reinvestment occurs before profits are calculated. If you reinvested all your revenue, you would have no profit, and thus no tax.
 
Feb 15, 2002
14,014
810
126
#29
You have to have profits to reinvest right? The money does not magically appear.

Or maybe you are thinking about writing reinvestment off federal taxes?
How has Trump not hired/nominated you? You have nearly the same IQ.
 
Sep 5, 2000
25,940
1,069
126
#33
the op is a simpleton. No way about it. And most gop are like him.
 

DrDoug

Diamond Member
Jan 16, 2014
3,492
1,666
136
#34
I know this is like shooting fish lying at the bottom of a drained barrel but...

QUOTE="Texashiker, post: 39733934, member: 285524"]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.[/QUOTE]

It seems you are unaware (as usual) that the only way that he would have been taxed at 70% (if it was that rate) was if he took all of the profits as income. Now if he (as you clearly desire) would instead put that money into his business, then the tax rate on profits would be much lower. In fact, he could run at a near zero tax rate by investing his profits back in to his business every year! What you are arguing is that he should be able to take all of his profits, be taxed at a lower rate because he's a businessman and the government should trust him to put that money back in to his companies. No, that's what they do now and it isn't working. Raise their taxes and watch them roll that money back in to their companies, just like you want them to be able to do. The only difference with higher rates is that they either roll it back in to their companies or pay Uncle Sam a huge chunk of it.

What do you think they would do at a 70% tax rate? Close their company and take home nothing? Tax the fuckers, their pay is ludicrously ridiculous.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
54,394
3,845
126
#35
Conservatives have been led to believe in a way of looking at the economy and the government that abdicates power to the Wealthy. That's what the whole smaller govt lower taxes routine accomplishes. It actually erodes the power of the People as expressed through the institutions of Democracy. We have the right to use the govt to shape the economy to better serve ordinary Americans. We have the right to limit the rewards of greed at the top to do that.
 

uclaLabrat

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2007
4,043
61
91
#36
The propaganda you've been swindled with is used to get you to vote against your own self interests. As has been said here already, jobs are created when there is demand that must be met. Companies and businesses dont create jobs out of the goodness of their heart; they must serve some function. Without money in the pockets of the consumer, there can be no demand.

Its similar to the fluff that capital gains taxes need to be low to encourage investment, which is a crock of shit. Investment will always be the best utilization of capital, because idle capital loses value due to inflation. Tax that as regular income. It doesnt need special consideration.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,562
107
126
#37
You have to have profits to reinvest right? The money does not magically appear.

Or maybe you are thinking about writing reinvestment off federal taxes?
Unfortunately as people above are also stating, this is not how business accounting works.

A company has people buy its services or products; that money comes in as revenue. The leaders of that company can now choose to do a few things with that revenue; they can take it and hire more people, buy more stuff to make more product or do any number of other things to improve the company. That turns that revenue into reinvestment. It only turns into profit - and thus becomes taxable - when they decide they don't want to reinvest but instead give that money to investors, ownership, et cetera.

As uclaLabrat has mentioned above, it's actually speculated by financial experts that a higher income tax rate for individuals would lead to more investment in companies (as in companies hiring more people and making more products) because it's more logical to use money that way than to turn it into profit.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
63,301
4,693
126
#38
You've missed the entire point; you dont reinvest profits. Reinvestment occurs before profits are calculated. If you reinvested all your revenue, you would have no profit, and thus no tax.
Yes, this is why Amazon booked almost no profit for basically the entirety of its existence. The money they make is invested back into the business.

Texashiker appears to believe that you get taxed on reinvested profits, meaning he has absolutely no idea what he’s talking about.
 

esquared

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 8, 2000
19,381
586
136
#39
Yes, this is why Amazon booked almost no profit for basically the entirety of its existence. The money they make is invested back into the business.

Texashiker appears to believe that you get taxed on reinvested profits, meaning he has absolutely no idea what he’s talking about.
I came to post this about Amazon. You beat me to it. This is a prime example of reinvesting and paying very little in taxes.
Bezos pretty much plowed every nickel he made back into the company. Almost no profits to pay shareholders.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
4,442
514
136
#40
Taxes can either incentivize someone to reinvest in equipment, pay workers better wages/benefits, etc., OR, they can incentivize someone to pull as much money out as possible, reinvest in ANOTHER COUNTRY, and fire current labor.

Guess which fucking tax incentive the richest people in the fucking solar system have been operating under for the past 40 god damn years, genius.

Think about it. See if your 14 neurons can come up with an answer.
 
Feb 6, 2002
19,438
2,289
136
#41
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/
Hate to inform you Skippy but demand creates job not job creators. Its the middle class who buys shit and without them you ain't got demand.

Besides, I saw jobs went to hell when Bill Clinton raised taxes on upper incomes.
 
Nov 11, 2004
36,049
55
126
#42
This thread and Spidey's thread trying to prove Pence isn't anti LGBT, these Trump nut huggers really are cucks.
 

DrDoug

Diamond Member
Jan 16, 2014
3,492
1,666
136
#43
It's interesting that the same people who say that a fair minimum wage is too much for those at the bottom frequently defend executives sucking every dollar in pay that they can out of a company. They're also frequently the same people who complain about the price of a product being too high, yet don't connect the executives of companies raising prices of that product so they can pay out higher dividends to investors (the fellow wealthy) and raise their own executive pay.

Conservatives let themselves be exploited. Hell, they beg for it.
 
Sep 5, 2000
25,940
1,069
126
#44
It's interesting that the same people who say that a fair minimum wage is too much for those at the bottom frequently defend executives sucking every dollar in pay that they can out of a company. They're also frequently the same people who complain about the price of a product being too high, yet don't connect the executives of companies raising prices of that product so they can pay out higher dividends to investors (the fellow wealthy) and raise their own executive pay.

Conservatives let themselves be exploited. Hell, they beg for it.
the guy cant even comprehend how business expenses work. Why would you expect him to not be confused about minimum wage?
 

dawp

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2005
8,697
583
126
#45
the fastest way to bankrupt a business is to produce more that demand will pick up, if the shit is not selling, producing more will not increase demand.

you increase production when demand increases, not the opposite.

or you limit production to drive up the price. if you flood the market you depress the price of what you are selling. not a way to generate profits.

if they really wanted to increase production, cut taxes on those the will use it to buy stuff, not on those the will squirrel away their tax cuts.
 
Last edited:

cytg111

Diamond Member
Mar 17, 2008
9,641
1,133
136
#46
You've missed the entire point; you dont reinvest profits. Reinvestment occurs before profits are calculated. If you reinvested all your revenue, you would have no profit, and thus no tax.
I predict no counter to this post by TH or otherwise conservative enlightened.
 

cytg111

Diamond Member
Mar 17, 2008
9,641
1,133
136
#47
Truth, it's actually the opposite effect as the OP claimed; tr higher taxes actually encourage higher business investment as any money taken out as profit is heavily taxed. Therefore, it makes much more sense to reinvest wherever possible.

Higher tax rates would have no impact on reinvestment, because only profits are taxed. Business investments dont count as profits.
Argh .. too much common sense and logic.. you are gonna break the board, plz stop it!!
 
Nov 4, 2004
25,206
1,986
136
#48
That's funny, lower taxes in the last year meant my employer continued their "resource actions" and moving jobs overseas while shedding more old timers here in the states.
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
75,448
559
126
#49
Henceforth I shall refer to op as "The Derp Creator"
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY