Doesn’t have a 'puter, he posts with an abacus. There are issues.
Voyager:
The example was of a guy opening up his first. But even for the Subway franchisee, if his new Subway shop drives a mom and pop shop out of business, is he a net job creator? And you’re hardly the first person in this thread to say demand rules.
Not sure what you mean. I don’t see where they posited that this is the job creator’s first foray into job creation and I thought we specifically posited that the new job creating sandwich shop was filling unfilled demand. Besides I was mostly making a reference to this guy John Fleming (American politician) - Wikipedia (who actually owns 33 subways), one of the deserving job creators that we are attacking with the threat of a tax increase of 0% to his purported income of less than $1 million.
Another reason why “job creators” is pure, unadulterated bullshit:
Top Republicans like Cantor have also pushed for a replay of the American Jobs Creation Act – endorsing a new tax amnesty that would allow corporate giants like Apple and Pfizer to bring home $1.4 trillion in offshore profits that would be taxed at just 5.25 percent – a favor for the wealthy that would generate another $79 billion in deficits. “At the same time they’re talking about these big deficit problems, running around saying, ‘We’re broke,’ they’re contemplating one of the most egregious tax giveaways in recent memory,” says Greenstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “The potential windfall gains are beyond enormous – and the lion’s share would go to shareholders of these big corporations and their executives.”
Never mind that the previous tax amnesty in 2004 created virtually no new jobs, as corporate executives eagerly pocketed the windfall for themselves: Republicans are once again claiming that the tax amnesty will enable corporations to spend their repatriated wealth putting Americans back to work. Mitt Romney, the GOP presidential front-runner, promises that the flood of corporate cash will generate “hundreds of thousands if not millions – of good, permanent, private-sector jobs.” That flies in the face of basic economics, given that corporate America is already sitting on hundreds of billions in domestic cash reserves. What the tax amnesty would do, however, is boost stock prices. According to an analysis by JP Morgan, as much as two-thirds of the $1.4 trillion that would be brought back into the country would go to stock “buybacks and dividends” rather than “new factories, new jobs and new equipment,” as Romney claims.
Interesting article in Rolling Stone this week. Pretty long, but well worth the read if you have the time:
Thanks for the link to a worthy read. (Let me put in a plug for this service which is how I read Rolling Stone where I live. Did Rolling Stone once insult the King of Thailand or something?)
The opening paragraphs of the article are illuminating (or amusing?):
The nation is still recovering from a crushing recession that sent unemployment hovering above nine percent for two straight years. The president, mindful of soaring deficits, is pushing bold action to shore up the nation’s balance sheet. Cloaking himself in the language of class warfare, he calls on a hostile Congress to end wasteful tax breaks for the rich. “We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share,” he thunders to a crowd in Georgia. Such tax loopholes, he adds, “sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary – and that’s crazy.”
Preacherlike, the president draws the crowd into a call-and-response. “Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver,” he demands, “or less?”
The crowd, sounding every bit like the protesters from Occupy Wall Street, roars back: “MORE!”
The year was 1985. The president was Ronald Wilson Reagan.