If we taxed the rich more, how would it affect job creation?

[techs]

Lets look at these companies discussed in a different thread on another issue:


Bill Gates worth $57 billion
co-founder of Microsoft which provides about 89,000 jobs world wide.
$640,000 in wealth for every person employed.

The four Walton children $93 billion combined.
Father founded Wal-Mart which provides 2,100,000 jobs
$44,000 in wealth for every job provided



Lets say we upped the top income tax bracket to 75 percent. Would Bill Gates have said its not worth it start Microsoft? Of course not. And the money that built Microsoft didn't come out of Gates pocket, but out of bank loans and stock.
AND I submit that if Gates paid more taxes that would mean the middle class would pay proportionatly less. Meaning they would have more money for software.
SO TAXING BILL GATES AT A HIGHER RATE WOULD CREATE MORE JOBS.


The four Walton children did squat to create any jobs. Their father did. And so the kids are tying up 93 billion dollars that if say, 25 billion had been paid in taxes, would proportionatly lower the middle class and poors taxes. Meaning they would have more money to spend at WalMart. Which would create more jobs.
SO TAXING THE WALTON KIDS AT A HIGHER RATE WOULD CREATE MORE JOBS.

Hopefully this will end the discussion. Higher taxes on the rich leave more money for everyone else, which stimulates demand, which creates jobs.

 

[Patranus]

Less jobs would be created.

Just an example.
Microsoft came out a few weeks ago and stated they would be forced to move a large percentage of their work force if a tax Obama purposed was enacted.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...01087&sid=aAKluP7yIwJY

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Patranus
Less jobs would be created.

You know you look like a complete idiot with your one line answers that don't make any sense and don't add to the debate.
I'm guessing you are somewhere between 7 and 12 years old, right?

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Patranus
Less jobs would be created.

That assumes that jobs are created because of the charity of the wealthy.

If middle class and poor folks are spending more money, it means that producers have to produce more goods and stores have to sell more. Both of these require employees. The rich guy still makes the money, but to do so, he has to employ people and sell goods.

I really think Republicans want a gilded upper class aristocracy that they can adore and worship.

 

[soulcougher73]

Originally posted by: techs
Lets look at these companies discussed in a different thread on another issue:


Bill Gates worth $57 billion
co-founder of Microsoft which provides about 89,000 jobs world wide.
$640,000 in wealth for every person employed.

The four Walton children $93 billion combined.
Father founded Wal-Mart which provides 2,100,000 jobs
$44,000 in wealth for every job provided



Lets say we upped the top income tax bracket to 75 percent. Would Bill Gates have said its not worth it start Microsoft? Of course not. And the money that built Microsoft didn't come out of Gates pocket, but out of bank loans and stock.
AND I submit that if Gates paid more taxes that would mean the middle class would pay proportionatly less. Meaning they would have more money for software.
SO TAXING BILL GATES AT A HIGHER RATE WOULD CREATE MORE JOBS.


The four Walton children did squat to create any jobs. Their father did. And so the kids are tying up 93 billion dollars that if say, 25 billion had been paid in taxes, would proportionatly lower the middle class and poors taxes. Meaning they would have more money to spend at WalMart. Which would create more jobs.
SO TAXING THE WALTON KIDS AT A HIGHER RATE WOULD CREATE MORE JOBS.

Hopefully this will end the discussion. Higher taxes on the rich leave more money for everyone else, which stimulates demand, which creates jobs.

I agree with you. I mean its not like they still wouldnt be filthy rich even at 75% taxes. My logic could be flawed, but i think it would work.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Patranus
Less jobs would be created.

Just an example.
Microsoft came out a few weeks ago and stated they would be forced to move a large percentage of their work force if a tax Obama purposed was enacted.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...01087&sid=aAKluP7yIwJY

uh, wtf that have to do with this thread? Have you read your link? Do you understand it?
Perhaps there are childrens websites that you could go to explain it to you?

 

[Patranus]

The simple fact of the matter is that historically, lower taxes has lead to the creation of wealth among the middle class and actually increases government revenue.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Patranus
The simple fact of the matter is that historically, lower taxes has lead to the creation of wealth among the middle class and actually increases government revenue.

Middle class tax cuts yes. Tax cuts for Bill Gates, not so much.

 

[SunSamurai]

Originally posted by: Patranus
The simple fact of the matter is that historically, lower taxes has lead to the creation of wealth among the middle class and actually increases government revenue.

Looks like you hit 'Reply" before including the paragraph detailing where thats true and where it isnt. Common mistake.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Patranus
The simple fact of the matter is that historically, lower taxes has lead to the creation of wealth among the middle class and actually increases government revenue.

Your pants are on fire.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Patranus
The simple fact of the matter is that historically, lower taxes has lead to the creation of wealth among the middle class and actually increases government revenue.

Your pants are on fire.

QFT
In fact if you look at the top tax rate in the US over the last 70 years the economy did FAR better the HIGHER the top tax rate was.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Patranus
The simple fact of the matter is that historically, lower taxes has lead to the creation of wealth among the middle class and actually increases government revenue.

Your pants are on fire.

QFT
In fact if you look at the top tax rate in the US over the last 70 years the economy did FAR better the HIGHER the top tax rate was.

Really? Not sure what economics classes you have been taking or what books you have been reading but even Bill Clinton understood that lower taxes leads to higher revenues for the government.

 

[nycromes]

Okay, lets say for example tomorrow we put a tax on Bill Gates and other Millionaires/Billionaires. Put yourself in their shoes for 15 minutes and think what you would do. You would obviously have a couple of options:

1. You could sit down and take the tax and just go on making a fraction of what you previously did.
2. you could relocate to a more friendly environment where you wouldn't have to pay as much, I'm sure many countries would love to be able to tax people like Bill Gates at a substantially lower rate than 75% and still make a ton of money off of him.
3. I'm sure there are other options, but there isn't much point to go on...

If you made a billion dollars a year and you were taxed at 75% of your earnings, you would take home 250 million. Exercising option 2, you could take home perhaps less than a billion or maybe even more, and be taxed at a lower rate by another country. For this example, lets say 50%, so you would take home 500million after taxes. Is the move going to cost $250 million? If not then you bet your butt that the rich will leave and leave in droves. This will make the primary tax burden fall to the middle class as the poor can't pay.

How does it pertain to job creation? Do you think Bill will do all of his work totally away from the company? No, he will relocate the company to where he is, and they will probably enjoy nice tax breaks there as well. Labor is labor in one place or the other, offer to move people or give them severance. Hire to fill the gaps in new country.

This post demonstrates one thing that many politicians just can't comprehend. People aren't stuck in one place (well the middle class and poor are in many ways) but the rich are free to leave and leave they will. With them will go many businesses and jobs. Your example sadly just expects the rich to take large pay cuts, but in reality they will demand more of their current workers and try to increase their wages to offset the difference. They will be less likely to want to hire another person as this will lead to much higher costs.

People aren't here to do your bidding and pay for you to live, they are here to do the best thing they can for themselves. If some other option out there is better, they will most likely take it. Wouldn't you? Why do you think the rich would act any differently than you? They have even more options available because of the money they possess.

 

[bobsmith1492]

Bill Gates' fortune IS Microsoft. It is Microsoft stock (for the most part, last I knew, etc.) So, if the gov taxed him 50% on his assets, they would have essentially just taken half of Microsoft.

 

[b2386]

You would see a migration of wealth out of this country like you would not believe. The fact that you would think otherwise speaks volumes of your intelligence in this area.

 

[OCGuy]

What is it with liberals and counting OPM all the time?

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: nycromes
Okay, lets say for example tomorrow we put a tax on Bill Gates and other Millionaires/Billionaires. Put yourself in their shoes for 15 minutes and think what you would do. You would obviously have a couple of options:

1. You could sit down and take the tax and just go on making a fraction of what you previously did.
2. you could relocate to a more friendly environment where you wouldn't have to pay as much, I'm sure many countries would love to be able to tax people like Bill Gates at a substantially lower rate than 75% and still make a ton of money off of him.
3. I'm sure there are other options, but there isn't much point to go on...

If you made a billion dollars a year and you were taxed at 75% of your earnings, you would take home 250 million. Exercising option 2, you could take home perhaps less than a billion or maybe even more, and be taxed at a lower rate by another country. For this example, lets say 50%, so you would take home 500million after taxes. Is the move going to cost $250 million? If not then you bet your butt that the rich will leave and leave in droves. This will make the primary tax burden fall to the middle class as the poor can't pay.

How does it pertain to job creation? Do you think Bill will do all of his work totally away from the company? No, he will relocate the company to where he is, and they will probably enjoy nice tax breaks there as well. Labor is labor in one place or the other, offer to move people or give them severance. Hire to fill the gaps in new country.

This post demonstrates one thing that many politicians just can't comprehend. People aren't stuck in one place (well the middle class and poor are in many ways) but the rich are free to leave and leave they will. With them will go many businesses and jobs. Your example sadly just expects the rich to take large pay cuts, but in reality they will demand more of their current workers and try to increase their wages to offset the difference. They will be less likely to want to hire another person as this will lead to much higher costs.

People aren't here to do your bidding and pay for you to live, they are here to do the best thing they can for themselves. If some other option out there is better, they will most likely take it. Wouldn't you? Why do you think the rich would act any differently than you? They have even more options available because of the money they possess.

Nonsense. The rich aren't going to leave. They didn't leave when the top rate was 90% after WWII. They're not going to leave now. All things are not equal. The only places with similar quality of life to the U.S. have equal or higher tax rates.

Bill Gates isn't going to move Microsoft anywhere either. Moving Microsoft facilities would cost a tremendous amount of money. He'd lose a lot of access to the U.S. business and Government market. Microsoft will ship some development work abroad and they'd do that regardless of our tax rates.

And make sure you read up on marginal tax rates. The country is full of people who don't get it.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: b2386
You would see a migration of wealth out of this country like you would not believe. The fact that you would think otherwise speaks volumes of your intelligence in this area.

LOL. That's what the rich guys want you to believe. Not going to happen. Europe has lots and lots and lots of rich people and much higher taxes and more social programs.

 

[b2386]

75%? I don't think so... Also, why would Europe be the only relocation alternative?

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: nycromes
Okay, lets say for example tomorrow we put a tax on Bill Gates and other Millionaires/Billionaires. Put yourself in their shoes for 15 minutes and think what you would do. You would obviously have a couple of options:

1. You could sit down and take the tax and just go on making a fraction of what you previously did.
2. you could relocate to a more friendly environment where you wouldn't have to pay as much, I'm sure many countries would love to be able to tax people like Bill Gates at a substantially lower rate than 75% and still make a ton of money off of him.
3. I'm sure there are other options, but there isn't much point to go on...

If you made a billion dollars a year and you were taxed at 75% of your earnings, you would take home 250 million. Exercising option 2, you could take home perhaps less than a billion or maybe even more, and be taxed at a lower rate by another country. For this example, lets say 50%, so you would take home 500million after taxes. Is the move going to cost $250 million? If not then you bet your butt that the rich will leave and leave in droves. This will make the primary tax burden fall to the middle class as the poor can't pay.

How does it pertain to job creation? Do you think Bill will do all of his work totally away from the company? No, he will relocate the company to where he is, and they will probably enjoy nice tax breaks there as well. Labor is labor in one place or the other, offer to move people or give them severance. Hire to fill the gaps in new country.

This post demonstrates one thing that many politicians just can't comprehend. People aren't stuck in one place (well the middle class and poor are in many ways) but the rich are free to leave and leave they will. With them will go many businesses and jobs. Your example sadly just expects the rich to take large pay cuts, but in reality they will demand more of their current workers and try to increase their wages to offset the difference. They will be less likely to want to hire another person as this will lead to much higher costs.

People aren't here to do your bidding and pay for you to live, they are here to do the best thing they can for themselves. If some other option out there is better, they will most likely take it. Wouldn't you? Why do you think the rich would act any differently than you? They have even more options available because of the money they possess.

Nonsense. The rich aren't going to leave. They didn't leave when the top rate was 90% after WWII. They're not going to leave now. All things are not equal. The only places with similar quality of life to the U.S. have equal or higher tax rates.

Bill Gates isn't going to move Microsoft anywhere either. Moving Microsoft facilities would cost a tremendous amount of money. He'd lose a lot of access to the U.S. business and Government market. Microsoft will ship some development work abroad and they'd do that regardless of our tax rates.

And make sure you read up on marginal tax rates. The country is full of people who don't get it.

Microsoft needs the US and its military to enforce copyright laws so other countries don't just pirate away Windoze.

 

[maluckey]

Raise taxes to a point O.K., after a certain breaking pont, you lose jobs AND revenue. Higher taxes in a free economy is a dangerous game.

As for 100 percent taxation on the Waltons? Obama spent MORE than that already just to fix Chrysler and GM. Where did that get us?

A one time 3000 dollar payout from that redistribution of the Walron family wealth would kill about 2800000 million jobs in the United States alone (just about 3800000 worldwide). GENIOUS!!! Now you have 3000 dollars in hand and no job OR a place as cheap as Walmart to spend that 3000 dollars (and now your money would then go Ten percent less distance).

Take that 2400 dollars (effectively, before taxes) and see where that gets you without a job.

Genious I say! Let's eat the rich!:roll:

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: b2386
75%? I don't think so... Also, why would Europe be the only relocation alternative?

Where else is there?

Japan? High taxes. Canada? High taxes. Australia? High taxes? Somalia? Low taxes but you need your own standing army. Mexico? Low taxes but you need your own standing army.

Your low tax paradise doesn't exist. You either pay taxes for a decent society or you pay people to protect you from those who want to take your head, literally.

 

[b2386]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: b2386
75%? I don't think so... Also, why would Europe be the only relocation alternative?

Where else is there?

Japan? High taxes. Canada? High taxes. Australia? High taxes? Somalia? Low taxes but you need your own standing army. Mexico? Low taxes but you need your own standing army.

Your low tax paradise doesn't exist. You either pay taxes for a decent society or you pay people to protect you from those who want to take your head, literally.

What about Dubai?

 

[blackangst1]

Wow techs. Troll post of the week.

/golf clap.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: b2386

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: b2386
75%? I don't think so... Also, why would Europe be the only relocation alternative?

Where else is there?

Japan? High taxes. Canada? High taxes. Australia? High taxes? Somalia? Low taxes but you need your own standing army. Mexico? Low taxes but you need your own standing army.

Your low tax paradise doesn't exist. You either pay taxes for a decent society or you pay people to protect you from those who want to take your head, literally.

What about Dubai?

http://www.government.ae/gov/en/biz/business/taxes.jsp

The UAE does not have any enforced federal income tax legislation for general business. An income tax decree has been enacted by each Emirate, but in practice, the enforcement of these decrees is restricted to foreign banks and to oil companies. This practice is not likely to change in the near future as the relevant mechanisms with which to implement the tax decrees have not yet been established. The decrees indicate, however, that if taxation were enforced, taxes could be imposed retroactively.

Foreign banks are taxed at 20 percent of their taxable income in the Emirates of Abu-Dhabi, Dubai and Sharjah. The tax is restricted to the taxable income which is earned or deemed to be earned in that particular Emirate. Oil Companies (which include any chargeable person that deals in oil or right to oil both off-shore and on-shore) pay a flat rate of 55 percent on their taxable income in Dubai and 50 percent in the other Emirates. In addition, they pay royalties on production.

Personal incomes, including all forms of salary and capital gains wherever arising, are not subject to taxation in any of the Emirates.