Proof that the rich are not "job creators"

[FORD]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjaAMCKSyzw

[Jagermeister]

If that's true then how come we now have the highest deficit EVER and unemploment is still like this?

:umm:

The number of Americans filing claims for unemployment benefits barely fell last week, a government report showed on Thursday, suggesting the labor market was struggling to regain momentum.


Initial claims for state unemployment benefits slipped just 1,000 to a seasonally adjusted 428,000, the Labor Department said. Economists polled by Reuters had forecast claims dropping to 420,000. The prior week's figure was unrevised at 429,000.

It was the 12th straight week that claims have been above 400,000, a level that is usually associated with a stable labor market. Employment stumbled badly in May, with employers adding just 54,000 jobs—the fewest in eight months.

"Payroll growth is going to be more like last month's rather than first three months of the year," said Troy Davig, senior U.S. economist at Barclays Capital in New York.

Nonfarm payrolls are expected to have increased 90,000 this month, according to a Reuters survey, with the unemployment rate edging down to 9.0 percent. The employment report for June will be released on July 8.

A Labor Department official said one state was estimated, noting there was nothing unusual in the state-level details.

The continued elevation of claims could raise concerns that the economic soft patch in the first half of the year could linger. The economy has been slammed by bad weather, high gasoline prices and supply chain disruptions after the March earthquake in Japan.

However, many economists and the Federal Reserve believe activity will pick-up in the third quarter as these temporary factors ease.

The four-week moving average of unemployment claims, a better measure of underlying trends, nudged up 500 to 426,750.

The number of people still receiving benefits under regular state programs after an initial week of aid fell 12,000 to 3.70 million in the week ended June 18. So-called continuing claims covered the survey week for the employment report's household survey, from which the unemployment rate is derived.

The number of people on emergency unemployment benefits climbed 1,471 to 3.30 million in the week ended June 11, the latest week for which data is available. A total of 7.51 million people were claiming unemployment benefits during that period under all programs, down 30,701 from the prior week.

[FORD]

Like Thom Hartmann says in the above video, it's really simple.

When people don't have money, they can't spend money, which means they can't buy anything. And when nobody is buying anything, that means the companies who are trying to sell that stuff lose money. Which means they also fire a bunch of people, who then in turn can no longer spend money and buy stuff, which means even more companies go out of business, etc.

Tax "cuts" for rich tax dodgers & outsourcing corporations and bailouts for banks were exactly the wrong approach. You can't solve a problem by giving money to those who already have enough money, because there's no incentive for them to spend it (i.e. put it back into the economy)

[BigBadBrian]

We all know the poor are the job creators.

[FORD]

Government policies of the past 30 years (Reagan/Poppy/Clinton/Chimp/ and so far, Obama) have disproportionally favored the rich, while directly assaulting the working class. The same 30 years have seen the decline of the United States to the point of another Great Depression.

It's not a coincidence.

[BigBadBrian]

Government policies of the past 30 years .....It's not a coincidence.

No it's not. I'm glad you finally came around to thefact we're spending too much on silly shit: the nanny state.

[FORD]

No it's not. I'm glad you finally came around to thefact we're spending too much on silly shit: the "defense" industry.

Indeed.

[binnie]

The problem here is at what point do you become 'rich'?

For example: the average annual wage in the UK is £26,000.

If someone earns £52,000 (200% of the national average) are they 'rich'? No? But they have twice as much money per year as the 'average' person? Yes? Then pretty much every accountant, lawyer, senior teacher, and a significant proportion of the nursing staff are 'rich' and should be taxed more. The problem with that being that the people who earn £52,000 per year spend that money - they have a bigger house and mortage, a flasher car, and so on. It's not sat in a bank account.

What about 4 times the national average: £104,000 per year. That - by anybody's standard - is a lot of cash. Easily upper middle class. But 'rich'? Really? Every doctor, many accountants and lawyers, many head-teachers, and some senior administrators fall into that category. Are they really 'rich' - I don't know.

Where do we draw the line?

[Warham]

The "rich" to Obama is anybody who owns a small business or above.

[sadaist]

We are just taxed to death already....every which way imaginable.

They take it as you make it in the form of income tax.

If you spend anything you have leftover you pay sales tax.

If you buy a home with what's leftover you pay property tax, utilities tax, insurance tax.

If you buy a car with what's leftover you pay sales tax, registration tax, insurance tax, gas tax, smog tax.

If you are lucky enough to have anything after all this, and are wise enough to save up a little....you pay tax on any earnings your tiny amount leftover might make.

And after they tax that interest on savings that they taxed when you originally earned it, don't spend it cause then you are back to paying all the other above taxes.


Tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax...................


And at the very end, after a lifetime of taxes you decide to leave whatever money you have remaining to your kids. Guess what? Inheritance tax. Estate tax. Death tax.

FUCK TAXES!

This isn't the Republican or conservative in me screaming out. It's the broke ass motherfucker who is just dog tired of so many God damned government paws pickpocketing my fucking wallet. The more I think about it and start adding up all the nickel & diming they do, it really drives me mad.


I need a smoke. Crap! Cigarette tax!

[FORD]

And if the corporations and the rich paid THEIR fair share of taxes, then they wouldn't need to keep making up new ways to tax the rest of us, right? :umm:

[binnie]

But again, Ford, who are the rich? Where do you draw the line?

[Seshmeister]

People on lower incomes spend a higher proportion of their salary i.e. all of it that's why sales/VAT taxes are inherently unfair and non progressive.

Reducing tax on rich people has never been shown to create wealth for a country. The so called 'trickle down' effect is a trickle which is another word for fuck all.

In the UK the conservative government is trying to solve the deficit by spending cuts but also 25% is by tax increases. For the US at this time to have the lowest taxes in 40 years on the rich is nuts.

[Seshmeister]

And if the corporations and the rich paid THEIR fair share of taxes, then they wouldn't need to keep making up new ways to tax the rest of us, right? :umm:

What's needed is some sort of world treaty on corporation tax and also an investment tax for the bookie banks so if these fuckers want to avoid tax they need to move their families to Somalia.

[binnie]

What's needed is some sort of world treaty on corporation tax and also an investment tax for the bookie banks so if these fuckers want to avoid tax they need to move their families to Somalia.

In the UK it's not just the very rich who 'avoid' tax. I met a plumber a couple of weeks ago who paid £600 of tax last year. He was driving a BMW.

Maybe we should have a world treaty on small business rates so that if those guys want to avoid tax they have to move to Somalia, too (I am joking, Sesh.)

[binnie]

People on lower incomes spend a higher proportion of their salary i.e. all of it that's why sales/VAT taxes are inherently unfair and non progressive.

Reducing tax on rich people has never been shown to create wealth for a country. The so called 'trickle down' effect is a trickle which is another word for fuck all.

In the UK the conservative government is trying to solve the deficit by spending cuts but also 25% is by tax increases. For the US at this time to have the lowest taxes in 40 years on the rich is nuts.

The counter-argument is that rich people invest their money (either in a business or just by putting in the bank) which creates investment in the economy. I'm not sure I buy it, however.

For me, the issue is moral rather than economical. If you earn over £42,000 you pay 40% tax; over £150,000 it's 50%. That money is not handed to you - you've earnt it either through hard work, or through a long, long line of qualifications. Why should you be penalized for being successful? I think the rates as they stand are about right; any higher and it starts to get silly, in my mind.

They should put higher taxes on utility companies and banks, certainly. I'd also cap public sector salaries at £42,000 (or whatever the higher rate of tax is at a given time). That's a good pension - it would be interesting to see how much savings would be if that was brought into play.

I also think that we should tax the fat. Smokers and drinkers get hit hard. Let's hit on the fatties.

[Seshmeister]

For me, the issue is moral rather than economical. If you earn over £42,000 you pay 40% tax; over £150,000 it's 50%. That money is not handed to you - you've earnt it either through hard work, or through a long, long line of qualifications. Why should you be penalized for being successful? I think the rates as they stand are about right; any higher and it starts to get silly, in my mind.


But that's not actually true.

Most people who earn high salaries do so because they were lucky enough to be born into an environment that allowed them to.

Go look up social mobility in the UK or the US it's as low as it's been since the middle ages.

Who pays for all this education you talk about? The fat smoking bus driver who drove you to your lectures each morning.

[Seshmeister]

Correction, afternoon.

[Seshmeister]

In the UK it's not just the very rich who 'avoid' tax. I met a plumber a couple of weeks ago who paid £600 of tax last year. He was driving a BMW.

Maybe we should have a world treaty on small business rates so that if those guys want to avoid tax they have to move to Somalia, too (I am joking, Sesh.)

I bet the plumber earns more than you, plumbers are fucking loaded.

[SilvioDante]

And if the corporations and the rich paid THEIR fair share of taxes, then they wouldn't need to keep making up new ways to tax the rest of us, right? :umm:

This is an argument I never understood....

Let's say I own a big bad oil company. Our government passes a bunch of regulations that closes every loophole and now my company has to pay our "fair share" of taxes. Let's say my tax rates jump 20%. I am suppose to go into our corporate meeting and say "well guys, the jig is up. We have ran from paying our "fair share" of taxes long enough. It's time to pony up and be the good citizens we are and pay our "fair share" and we all have to take a pay cut." ???

Uhhh, no....

I think the meeting would go something like this: "Our tax rate just jumped 20%, raise the price of our product 20% to offset the cost. We'll just pass it on. Someone else can pay for it! Any questions, no? Meeting adjourned"

Just a thought...

[Seshmeister]

I think what happens is that because they are so rich the corporations can afford very smart people who just run rings around the government employees whose job is to get the tax.

Meanwhile the government employs people like Michelle Bachmann from the University of fairies and goblins to hold them to account.

[binnie]

But that's not actually true.

Most people who earn high salaries do so because they were lucky enough to be born into an environment that allowed them to.

Go look up social mobility in the UK or the US it's as low as it's been since the middle ages.

Who pays for all this education you talk about? The fat smoking bus driver who drove you to your lectures each morning.

It's certainly true that social mobility is depressingly low. I can claim to be one the few who 'moved up', however. My Dad is a mechanic. When I told him I was applying to university, he turned to me and said 'that's not the sort of thing we do' (bearing in mind I had straight As at GCSE and A Level). It's a different world to me, and a long way from my council estate. How did I get there? Through hard work and knowing what I wanted to do from being about 13 years old. It's certainly not easy to be socially mobile (and there are two many barriers in the way), but if you want it you can take it.

And yes, most of the kid who grow up to earn the big bucks had parents who also earnt the big bucks. And, like their parents, they will pay considerably more tax than the bus driver. They will also work in jobs where they are routninely bullied into 'voluntary' over-time and be stressed for most of their working lives (who would want to be a lawyer?) In my experience of teaching a load of public-school toffs, however, what surprises me most is how hard they work even in their first year as undegrads; and how hard they've always worked. The reason for that is not because they were wealthy, but because they come from a culture - at home and at school - where anything less than an A is a fail.

Privileged? Certainly. But they work hard too.

Maybe if the bus driver had had a plan at 14, 15 or 16, he wouldn't be a bus driver (maybe he's actually happy being a bus driver.) I went to a shit school and flourished, so it is possible. I'd certainly like the world to be fairer, but we all also have to realize that whilst fortune controls half of our fate, we can impact on the other half.

[binnie]

I bet the plumber earns more than you, plumbers are fucking loaded.

I'll bet he does too. I earn £30K.

My point is that not all 'tax avoiders' are mutli-millionaires. If you are self-employed and have a half decent accountant, you can pay very little tax compared to someone who (on paper at least) earns the same but works for a company. Would you argue that we should close all of those loop-holes too? (The Torries wouldn't do it, mind.)

[Seshmeister]

You want to tax the people that actually create wealth more to pay for your big fat public sector pension, holidays and paternity leave whilst you play yourself teaching unnecessary stuff to rich kids they could find on the internet themselves? :D

[binnie]

You want to tax the people that actually create wealth more to pay for your big fat public sector pension, holidays and paternity leave whilst you play yourself teaching unnecessary stuff to rich kids they could find on the internet themselves? :D

Yes please. :D

(Except the paternity leave part. Given that I don't really want to have children thrust upon me, when I reluctantly agree to Mrs binnie's demands to spawn them I don't want to be left looking after them too much. )

We still send them to libraries - most of the best academic scholarship rarely makes it onto the web (outside of subscription-only journals). Universites are HUGE welath creators, too.

[Seshmeister]

I actually had a meeting cancelled earlier in the year because the woman was on paternity leave after her partner had a baby.

It's PC gone mad I tells ya. :)

[Hardrock69]

Look the answer is simple. If the government were truly interested in bailing out America, they would print up enough cash that they could give every tax payer $100,000. Our dollars are based on nothing anyway, so what is a few trillion more dollars?

Instantly, everyone would get out of debt. People would start shopping like crazy. Jobs would be created. Unemployment would drop drastically. And life would go on.

[Seshmeister]

Inflation would go to 1000%

[BigBadBrian]

Look the answer is simple. If the government were truly interested in bailing out America, they would print up enough cash that they could give every tax payer $100,000. Our dollars are based on nothing anyway, so what is a few trillion more dollars?

Instantly, everyone would get out of debt. People would start shopping like crazy. Jobs would be created. Unemployment would drop drastically. And life would go on.

You know, I've often thought that if the Obama Clan wanted a stimulus so bad, one paid to the people instead of letting the govt spend it would be far more effective. Alot of people would use it to pay off bills and get out of debt...then alot of people would blow it. Use vouchers (no cash) and have a legal list of what it could be used for (House purchases and bill pay-offs mainly) and tie it to their income tax returns (no, it would not be taxed) so the govt could keep track that people are spending it legally. I have more faith in the public than I do of the government when it comes to spending.

[BigBadBrian]

No it's not. I'm glad you finally came around to thefact we're spending too much on silly shit: the "defense" industry.


Yeah, we all know those military folks are overpaid, you fuckin' retard.

[FORD]

Yeah, we all know those military folks are overpaid, you fuckin' retard.

That has nothing to do with the "defense" industry, aside from being their pawns.

[Nickdfresh]

If that's true then how come we now have the highest deficit EVER and unemploment is still like this?

:umm:
.....

We might just as well ask that if tax cuts and low taxes on the wealthy is the answer, then why is the U.S. still crawling its way out of recession? Indeed, since the Bush era tax cuts date back to the early 2000s, why did we ever slip into such a serious recession to begin with?