Would increased taxes on the wealthy and big business REALLY cost jobs?

[lawgator1]

How can this be so if corporate profits are at record highs and the top income earners have been doing so well in the last 3-5 years? They aren't investing any of that into the economy now.

 

[theFallGuy]

and taxing them more is going to do what to get them to invest in jobs? Taxing them is a lame excuse for Obama to have a reason to take more money to spend on more idiotic things like he's been doing. You know, give more out to his Solyndra-like friends.

 

[theFallGuy]

and his union bosses that supported his campaign, kind of like that stimulus he passed

 

[utvolpj]

would you buy a stock today when you're pretty sure it's about to drop?

 

[MG1968]

How can this be so if corporate profits are at record highs and the top income earners have been doing so well in the last 3-5 years? They aren't investing any of that into the economy now.

how many new paralegals has your firm hired in this economy?

 

[lawgator1]

how many new paralegals has your firm hired in this economy?

Minus 1.

But that has nothing to do with my tax rates, and if they were a little lower or higher that would have no effect.

Of course I'm not in the bracket we are talking about, anyway.

 

[lawgator1]

My point is, the assumption in this theory is that if they had more money the wealthy and corporations would use it to hire more people.

Well, they have more money already. A lot of it. And if none of that is getting invested now in terms of hiring people, then what makes anyone think that slightly lower or higher taxes will have any effect?

 

[utvolpj]

so your expenses had nothing to do with laying off/not hiring someone? Nothing?

 

[volinbham]

In particular, the tax changes on investment (dividends, cap gains) will raise the cost of capital for companies.

 

[BeecherVol]

Raising taxes on the rich has a whole lot more to do with spreading wealth than it does creating jobs or debit reduction.

If you raise taxes and spending the debits a wash, thats why the focus is neither jobs nor debit. Its re-election season.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

In particular, the tax changes on investment (dividends, cap gains) will raise the cost of capital for companies.

It hurts retirees and/or people about to retire even worse, imo. They will have less income and wil have a lower standard of living.

The baby boomers are not voting for Obama in 2012.

Shall we discuss what Obama Care will cost businesses by 2015?

 

[dreVol]

I'll entertain the "tax the rich to pay down our debt" argument when I see evidence that the new revenue will actually be appropriated for that single purpose. Taxing the largest corporations and richest Americans at 100% still leaves a deficit. Either the tax raising is purely rhetoric or it's a complete lie because it won't be put toward the nation's debt.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[BeecherVol]

I'll entertain the "tax the rich to pay down our debt" argument when I see evidence that the new revenue will actually be appropriated for that single purpose. Taxing the largest corporations and richest Americans at 100% still leaves a deficit. Either the tax raising is purely rhetoric or it's a complete lie because it won't be put toward the nation's debt.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Its not about the debit. It never has been. If it was we wouldn't be talking about spending in the same breath as raising taxes. That shows your not serious.

 

[dreVol]

Its not about the debit. It never has been. If it was we wouldn't be talking about spending in the same breath as raising taxes. That shows your not serious.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner!
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[theFallGuy]

My point is, the assumption in this theory is that if they had more money the wealthy and corporations would use it to hire more people.

Well, they have more money already. A lot of it. And if none of that is getting invested now in terms of hiring people, then what makes anyone think that slightly lower or higher taxes will have any effect?

My point is that the govt creates no jobs and no wealth. They just suck it out of yhe economy.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[n_huffhines]

How can this be so if corporate profits are at record highs and the top income earners have been doing so well in the last 3-5 years? They aren't investing any of that into the economy now.

That has nothing to do with it. You hire workers until marginal benefit = marginal cost. Taxes make marginal cost go up, thus you stop hiring sooner. If the marginal cost of an additional employee is decreased, you start hiring again.

 

[lawgator1]

That has nothing to do with it. You hire workers until marginal benefit = marginal cost. Taxes make marginal cost go up, thus you stop hiring sooner. If the marginal cost of an additional employee is decreased, you start hiring again.

Then you would agree that the corporate tax rate need not be altered.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[n_huffhines]

Then you would agree that the corporate tax rate need not be altered.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

No. You diminish the marginal benefit of an additional employee when you tax the profitability he offers your firm. Not to mention all the employment taxes that drive up the marginal cost of hiring that employee. A company is not going to go through the effort of hiring a new employee if they are only going to break even on him, even if they are extremely profitable.

 

[rjd970]

It hurts retirees and/or people about to retire even worse, imo. They will have less income and wil have a lower standard of living.

The baby boomers are not voting for Obama in 2012.

Shall we discuss what Obama Care will cost businesses by 2015?

You wouldn't think, but if the republicans don't drop this rhetoric about SS and Medicare they won't vote for them either. Not defending the programs, just how the Rs are selling their ideas. This and vaccinations (among all things) will be Perry's ultimate downfall.

 

[BigPapaVol]

How can this be so if corporate profits are at record highs and the top income earners have been doing so well in the last 3-5 years? They aren't investing any of that into the economy now.

This is fantasy. Public Corp earnings might be high, but I don't buy that. I guarantee you that small and midsize business earnings are down and that represents the bulk of employers. Stop with this bullshiz lefty website lunacy. We need LLCs to be hiring. None are.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[theutvolunteers]

The answer to the title question is no. Con propoganda wants you to believe so though.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[BigPapaVol]

The answer to the title question is no. Con propoganda wants you to believe so though.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

You'd be best served by saying you have no idea.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[RespectTradition]

How can this be so if corporate profits are at record highs and the top income earners have been doing so well in the last 3-5 years? They aren't investing any of that into the economy now.

Since money sitting in a bank account makes nothing, especially when inflation is higher than interest rates, you have to ask yourself why? Why are the corps sitting on money? They are in the profit business and money sitting in an account doesn't make profits. Maybe there is more to the story and your question is too simplistic and doesn't address the issues.

My point is, the assumption in this theory is that if they had more money the wealthy and corporations would use it to hire more people.

Well, they have more money already. A lot of it. And if none of that is getting invested now in terms of hiring people, then what makes anyone think that slightly lower or higher taxes will have any effect?

That is only one of the assumptions underlying the theory. If I assume that I can only get a date if I ask a girl out, then is it fair to say that asking a girl out will result in a date? Nope. We must also assume that for the date to happen the girl must see something in me to make her want to date me. So really, just assuming one part and that part being true doesn't tell the whole story.

Businesses want to minimize risks. One of the ways to do that is to predict the future and make your decisions based on those predictions. The better you are at forecasting, the better your decisions. What the feds have been doing has created so much uncertainty that good decisions can't be made. The safest choice is to sit on money and not take a risk that could prove disastrous.

 

[Vols520]

This is fantasy. Public Corp earnings might be high, but I don't buy that. I guarantee you that small and midsize business earnings are down and that represents the bulk of employers. Stop with this bullshiz lefty website lunacy. We need LLCs to be hiring. None are.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

The small business owners are always the ones hung out to dry. People seem to not realize their profits fluctuate dramatically and they have a lot of expenses.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[NEO]

Since money sitting in a bank account makes nothing, especially when inflation is higher than interest rates, you have to ask yourself why? Why are the corps sitting on money? They are in the profit business and money sitting in an account doesn't make profits. Maybe there is more to the story and your question is too simplistic and doesn't address the issues.



That is only one of the assumptions underlying the theory. If I assume that I can only get a date if I ask a girl out, then is it fair to say that asking a girl out will result in a date? Nope. We must also assume that for the date to happen the girl must see something in me to make her want to date me. So really, just assuming one part and that part being true doesn't tell the whole story.

Businesses want to minimize risks. One of the ways to do that is to predict the future and make your decisions based on those predictions. The better you are at forecasting, the better your decisions. What the feds have been doing has created so much uncertainty that good decisions can't be made. The safest choice is to sit on money and not take a risk that could prove disastrous.[/QUOTE]

Bingo.

Sometimes if there is a man outside your house trying to kill you it's just smarter to leave the doors locked and wait it out, no matter how much firepower you have inside. Alot of us are just waiting it out or wondering if we should run out the backdoor. I personally am waiting and I am more than happy to gain a quarter of one percent while i wait.