Proof that the rich are not "job creators"

[FORD]

[Jagermeister]

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



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?

[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?

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.)