Taxing the Rich does not kill Jobs

Discussion in 'Politics' started by PocketChange, Dec 3, 2010.

  1. How does the tax rate individuals pay affect jobs?

    This is GOP BS.

    Corporations create jobs and not individuals.

    Lowering the individual tax rate may allow them to hire a housekeeper but the corporations they own shares of create all of the significant jobs.

    Jack the individual bracketed tax rate up to 70% and provide a pass through tax credit for US based employees like child deductions and you'll generate jobs.

    Give each corporation a tax credit equal to their US payroll and benefits (by social security)... let these credits pass through to the individuals shareholders tax returns.

    This is the only way to create jobs in the US.

    $40k job = $40k tax credit to the corporation / rich owner.
    Feds still get their bracketed cut from the employee.
    States still make sales tax revenue from employee purchases.

    Even a small business with a $1M payroll will provide $1M in pass through tax credits to the owners and at least $300k in taxes paid to the govt by the employees.

    This tax credit will significantly curb outsourcing and provide an incentive to hire. Outsourcing the same $40k US based job for $10k overseas will not earn a $40K tax credit and the $30k in additional profits would get taxed at least 50%. In other words out sourcing the job will cost $25k versus a $40k tax credit evening the playing field so to speak.

    Food for thought...
  2. I think that no matter what the tax rate the govt will pretty much get
    the same revenue over time.
  3. Maverick74


    It's not a revenue problem, it's a spending problem. For every $1 the government takes in, it will find a way to spend a 1.50. We can raise taxes to 90%. The government will always spend more then it takes in. The tax rate is a moot point.
  4. Lucrum


    I believe this is actually true. I saw an economist interviewed recently that had done a study on the matter. Despite rates, revenues only fluctuate a few points. When rates are raised tax payers tend to avoid taxes through shelters or behavior.

    I'm not sure what all the tax the rich debate is about anyway.

    We don't have have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem
  5. Lucrum


    I guess it's easy to propose or support higher taxes, when you're not paying much if any yourself.
  6. The gov't is definitely spending WAY too much - and it seems the Fed just prints the money they want to spend.

    BUT - as far as taxes, there are 2 things that pop up that make no sense.

    There was a story recently that Google pays like 2% tax because of all their offshore and sheltering. How is that ok?

    On individuals, I have seen Arthur Laffer repeatedly argue that if you raise the taxes on the rich, they will just use loopholes and shelters to avoid paying. BUT - that is where he leaves the argument. He never suggests to close the loopholes or avoidance schemes, as though it is their right to have them. Since when?

    Since the taxes are not going away, saying "Don't tax the rich!" is equal to saying "Only tax the middle-class!", because it ain't coming out of the pockets of the poor!
  7. It's obvious PocketChange is a liberal who has no clue what he's talking about.

    Food for thought:

    I edited out less significant info.

    Small firms:
    • Represent 99.7% of all employer firms.
    • Generated 65% of net new jobs over the past 17 years.
    • Create more than half of the nonfarm private GDP.
    • Hire 43% of high tech workers (scientists, engineers, computer programmers, and others).
    • Are 52% home-based and 2% franchises.
    • Made up 97.5% of all identified exporters and produced 31% of export value in FY 2008.
    • Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms.

    The smallest firms (fewer than 20 employees) spend 36% more per employee than larger firms to comply with federal regulations. Very small firms spend 4.5 times as much per employee to comply with environmental regulations and 3 times more per employee on tax compliance than their largest counterparts.

    You liberals need to get yourselves educated. [​IMG]
  8. cstfx


    The OMB says that extending ALL the Bush Tax Cuts would cost 3.4T over 10 years. (number not indexed to AMT, but the number being thrown around lately)

    Obama and the scoobies cry that extending the tax cuts for upper income earners would cost 700B over that same year and the Gov't can't afford those breaks for the "rich" because of our deficits.

    Perhaps then someone can explain how we can afford the other 2.7T in tax breaks if we can't afford the 700B?
  9. chartman


    Nonsease. I used to be poor and had to pay income taxes. Of course I was too young and did not have the ability at that time to do my own taxes or pay someone so I had the local IRS office prepare my return. What a joke!!! When I protested that I had made only the minimum wage, at that time $1.05 per hour, all year and had three dependents, my sister, brother and mother, whose total income was $13.70 per month for all three, they informed that I did not make enough money to support myself much less three others. They denied them as dependents and had me paying income taxes. Two lessons learned: never expect the IRS, or any governmental agency, to represent your best interest and, most of all, the poor pays more taxes than most rich people. There are no loopholes or tax shelters for the poor.
  10. Ricter


    The $2.7 trillion is a 10-year estimate, and the $700 billion is a one year estimate? Just asking.
    #10     Dec 4, 2010