…Or Science. Or economics The modern republican party seems to have a very poor grip on a little thing I have to call “reality”.
I think they think all us “poor people” are too stupid to understand the difference between personal income tax and corporate income tax.
I took “Marxist sentiments are so strong in America . . .” as the tipoff, but even then I couldn’t be sure.
I didn’t have time to read through all four pages of this thread, so I don’t know if this has been mentioned yet but a very shady aspect of the “job creator” propaganda is that Republicans cry foul at the mention of raising taxes on rich people or “corporations” (as Mitt Romney pointed out, corporations are people too). Yet anyone can become a “corporation”, and thus enjoy a 15% tax rate, rather than 35% that they’d pay as an individual (many rich people do this just to pay lower taxes). So the “job creators” or the “small businesses” are in many instances NOT real businesses at all, just rich individuals exploiting tax loopholes.
I’m having a hard time imagining how someone could say this with a straight face. If there’s a group of people who want to buy a sandwich and someone decides to start selling them, how is he the job creator? He wouldn’t have made sandwiches if no one wanted to buy them (he’s a bit of a dick, in that sense). On the other hand, if he didn’t sell them for $1, and there was a demand for it, surely someone else might have decided it was worth it to sell them for $1.25. Given that, in what way has the demand not created the job?
more like GLOB SECRETORS, amirite?!
Um . . . NO. There is just nothing correct about the above post at all. Forming a corporation does not reduce one’s taxes at all. Your post is 100% hogwash and bullshit.
Well, he created his own job. If he wants to make more sandwiches than he himself could make, he could hire someone else to help him, in which case he would have created two jobs.
I’m really not seeing what in my post has you confused.
Well, then the someone else would be the job creator.
The point is that the bare fact that there is a group of people somewhere who wants sandwiches doesn’t cause someone to start selling sandwiches. The person selling sandwiches must perceive the demand and take the risk of starting a business to meet the demand. The demand doesn’t cause a sandwich shop (and the jobs of those working there) to spontaneously be created like rats out of dirty rags.
And then they went and created jobs - in India and China, while laying off the workers here. :dubious:
It’s the “supply side” theory or something :dubious:
This guy is not in the top tax bracket, and not likely to be in the top tax bracket, and is just another middle class people the Republicans are screwing over. He is indeed a job creator. Now, is the CEO who is in the top bracket and who just laid off 20,000 workers a job creator?
But that’s exactly what it has done! Would someone have started selling the sandwiches if there wasn’t a demand to start with? Or at least that they perceived there to be a demand? I’m not disagreeing with you with respect to the fact that it does take both a demand and someone willing to fill that demand to create a job. However, the person willing to fill the demand is far more expendable. After all, if I don’t sell the sandwich for a dollar, someone will be there to sell it for $1.25, or $2 or $50. If the group of people doesn’t want to pay for a sandwich though, there won’t be a job.
Hey, it’s a business model that worked for this guy.
Well, when you talk about a sole proprietorship, a partnership or a S-Corp - the lines do start to get a little blurry.
But, as was said, most of these people are NOT in the top tax bracket, nor are they providing a lot of jobs within each individual corporation - often just one. The reason they provide so many jobs is because there are so many of these little businesses out there.
Are you serious? Or are you pretending to be stupid for laughs?
When I said “spontaneously spring into existence,” I meant “without its creation by any human.”. So, imagine some people sitting around wanting a sandwich and then BING a sandwich shop is just created without any human having decided to create it. That’s what you demand people are positing occurs.
Also, the idea of “if I don’t start a sandwich shop then someone else inevitably will as long as there is a demand” is bullshit. You may be the only one who (I) accurately perceives the demand (ie, is it for hoagies or dipped beef) and/or has the resources and willingness to respond to the demand.
In any event, that’s just a side comment–it doesn’t matter for present purposes whether ýou or someone else starts a restaurant. If it gets started it’s because someone started–the demand did not cause it to start witout any starter.
I don’t think anyone assumes that businesses magically spring into existence untouched by human hand, so you can pack the straw away again.
Highly unlikely in a free market economy. An unfilled niche is money on the table.
The point you are handwaving away is that if demand exists, then there is a strong impetus for someone to provide a supply. Giving tax breaks to rich people on the assumption that it will be them is stupid; it could just as well be (and often is more likely to be) some small entrepreneur who mortgages his house or takes out a loan or gets some VC to start the business.
No one starts a business without demand (unless they’re selling nose puppies) but demand can be met by virtually anyone.
No. Not that. Just because you can show that a couple of celebrities don’t really create jobs is no different than someone else pointing out that some people on welfare use their payments to buy MD 20/20 and crack. Individual anecdotes don’t prove or disprove anything.
It’s the idea that the majority of welfare recipients use the money to support their families and that the people with a lot of extra money to invest are the ones that create jobs that make the ideas live or die on their own merits. Pointing out an exception to the general rule does not disprove the rule.
And when he gets a mortgage, loan, or VC money, where does this money come from? Obviously, it comes from people who have an excess of it (those rich bastards) who want to invest it in this entrepreneur’s idea. But there is risk. The entrepreneur could fail and they could lose their money. Therefore they require a certain return in order for the risk to be worthwhile.
And if you increase the tax on that return, whatever the numbers, there are certain ventures that are desired by the public, and would create jobs, that simply will NOT get started because of that tax increase. It’s simply economics and I don’t know why your side won’t admit it.
You should at least say, “Yes, it will cost jobs, but it is necessary to reduce the deficit.”
Fair enough, that instance was a particularly poor piece of evidence for supply-side economics. The other papers written on the subject, along with the idea that without intervention by raising demand, raising supply can carry the economy on its own (as many republicans seem to believe), is not.
The Complete Failure of Supply-Side Economics <- Possibly relevant
All this talk about sandwiches would be making me hungry, were it not for the copious amount of bullshit that’s accompanying it.
I have a hard time imagining that increased taxes is going to make the role of CEO a hard one to find applicants for. It’s not like they are going to switch to a different company, since all CEO positions are going to be taxed. I also don’t think this will drive people away from the position entirely. People compete for the top position as much for prestige and power as they do for salary. If the going rate for a fortune 500 CEO was 250K per year they would still get just as many applicants. In fact they might get better ones since the people they got were motivated more by interest in the company rather than just greed. Finally if on the off chance that this extra taxation leads to a diminishing talent, does this really hurt the economy as a whole. The CEO’s wage is based on the value is based on the perceived value he adds to the company not to the Economy. The main purpose of the Coke CEO is a get market share away from Pepsi. The main purpose of a Pepsi CEO is to take market share away from Coke. If both companies have an equal loss of talent at the top, I fail so see how this hurts the economy. The only thing I can see is that a smaller cola company that can’t afford 8 figure salaries may have more of a chance to make a go of it before being crushed under foot. To me this wouldn’t be a bad thing.