Buffett and Gates say no correlation

Discussion in 'Politics' started by cgroupman, Jan 26, 2012.

  1. They agree that there is not correlation between taxes and job creation. And, that the rich should pay more. I know, easy for them to say. But I think I agree with the job creation part. A graduated tax system allows for anyone to start a business, pay lower taxes until they start making more money, and then pay a bit more.

    I recall the horrid years of 70+% top tax rates. 35% doesn't seem so bad.

  2. pspr


    Well, just just take every dime over $100,000 that everyone makes since it has no correlation. It still won't raise enough to pay the national debt or government spending growth so lets just have a lottery with the money the government gets.

    Oh, I forgot, they won't be getting any more money after the first year or two because there won't be any business owners left. Just the government.

    BTW, I remember when top tax rates were 70% and even as high as 90%. I also remember all the tax shelters that let high income individuals invest money in new ideas and even take a write off in MULTIPLES of THEIR INVESTMENT. I remember how easy it was to invest in tax shelters, they were all over the place. I remember because I sold those investment vehicles. It let Congress dictate what businesses areas got lots of investment capital and which didn't.

    When top tax rates where brought down to half what they were these tax shelters were ended. That was the trade off. Lower tax rates for all in exchange for ending the massive tax shelter investment business.

    Now Democrats want to take top tax rates back up but without providing any tax shelters to higher income individual. All it will do is drive investment and business further off-shore in droves.
  3. Max E.

    Max E.

    Well this is a statement that is very easily proven false. Set the tax rate to 100%, and see what happens in terms of employment.

    There isnt an economist in the world who would deny the fact that as a whole the private sector is more efficient than the government.
  4. Perhaps there is no correlation with job creation but there is a case to be made for taxes and job loss.


    When Congress imposed a 10 percent luxury tax on yachts, private airplanes and expensive automobiles, Sen. Ted Kennedy and then-Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell crowed publicly about how the rich would finally be paying their fair share of taxes. What actually happened is laid out in a Heartland Institute blog post by Edmund Contoski titled "Economically illiterate Obama, re: Corporate Jets" (7/12/2011).

    Within eight months after the change in the law took effect, Viking Yachts, the largest U.S. yacht manufacturer, laid off 1,140 of its 1,400 employees and closed one of its two manufacturing plants. Before it was all over, Viking Yachts was down to 68 employees. In the first year, one-third of U.S. yacht-building companies stopped production, and according to a report by the congressional Joint Economic Committee, the industry lost 7,600 jobs. When it was over, 25,000 workers had lost their jobs building yachts, and 75,000 more jobs were lost in companies that supplied yacht parts and material. Ocean Yachts trimmed its workforce from 350 to 50. Egg Harbor Yachts went from 200 employees to five and later filed for bankruptcy. The U.S., which had been a net exporter of yachts, became a net importer as U.S. companies closed. Jobs shifted to companies in Europe and the Bahamas. The U.S. Treasury collected zero revenue from the sales driven overseas.

    Back then, Congress told us that the luxury tax on boats, aircraft and jewelry would raise $31 million in revenue a year. Instead, the tax destroyed 330 jobs in jewelry manufacturing and 1,470 in the aircraft industry, in addition to the thousands destroyed in the yacht industry. Those job losses cost the government a total of $24.2 million in unemployment benefits and lost income tax revenues. The net effect of the luxury tax was a loss of $7.6 million in fiscal 1991, which means Congress' projection was off by $38.6 million. The Joint Economic Committee concluded that the value of jobs lost in just the first six months of the luxury tax was $159.6 million.

  5. Eight


    soo I own a Yacht building company outside the US.. I see that the Americans are better at building yachts than my lazy workers ever will be.. so I donate to Tax and Spend economic illiterate American politicians and convince them that they should tax the hell out of American Yacht builders to "make the world a better place"...
  6. pspr


    But, as soon as they see the contribution is from a foreign source, the money goes right back to the donor. Unless the donation is to Obama, of course. :D
  7. Daal


    If there is no correlation is probably because at high rates people just flat out don't pay the taxes and find ways to cheat the system. No because the taxes weren't harmful
  8. A quick google search could provide dozens of similiar headlines.

    "Gas Tax Increase to Be Considered in Infrastructure Jobs"


    Why are these necessary?

    Urban Enterprise Zones (UEZs), also known as Enterprise Zones, are intended to encourage development in blighted neighborhoods through tax and regulatory relief to entrepreneurs and investors who launch businesses in the area. UEZs are areas where companies can locate free of certain local, state, and federal taxes and restrictions.
  9. I think, without taking it to extremes like 100% taxes, or zero taxes, that business development would grow in a positive leaning environment. Sure, a vague term, positive leaning, but I mean as opposed to the doom and gloom spouted by so many candidates for political reasons.

    The debt is horrible, but the market continues up. Sales of cars and other things are up again. Even GM, ok Gov Motors if you must, is back on top. Would the alternative been better? Some of you may even argue the 'yes' side of this, but really? The company that gave us corvettes, GTO's, and 57 Chevy's? Our local car dealers are clucking like hens.

    Why would paying some taxes deride any new business venture?

    Let it rip, I guess. I'm sure there's some of you who really think we should just stay negative.

    Not me.

  10. Brass


    #10     Jan 27, 2012