They wouldn’t need more workers if the demand was static. They would need a new business. Businesses aren’t hiring because the perceived costs will not justify the increase in revenue. But if the perceived costs are lower, some will be able to hire more workers and at a cost they find acceptable. And if we increase the tax rate, the tax break will be a greater incentive.
And could you tell me where I suggested giving workers to businesses for free?
It doesn’t matter.
The Republican voting base is people that worship the wealthy, and want to block any and all Gov resources that may end up to the benefit of non-whites.
Reagan started this wealth-worship and poor-minority-hate in the early 80’s. It’s still the defining goal of the Republicans in 2011.
:):):):):):):):):):):):):)
There it is again. The conflation of growth and job creation. Surely you know that there are plenty of ways for a company to grow without creating jobs. Not the same thing at all.
From Lyndon Johnson to George W. Bush there was always more job creation per year under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents. There was more job creation per year under Harry Truman than under Dwight Eisenhower.
Don’t take my word for it. Read it in The Wall Street Journal.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/
Ah, OK. That’s good.
No problem.
Wait. Hold on. What’s the difference between giving them a tax break and giving them money?
There is no difference. The government giving someone a $50 tax break is exactly equivalent to the government giving someone $50.
So if you buy something at the store on sale for $100, marked down from $150, that’s exactly the same as the store giving you $50. I never realized how much money people are giving me. Walmart must be giving people millions of dollars everyday.
Of course a tax break of $X if you do Y isn’t the same as handing someone $X with no conditions attached. But it’s exactly the same as handing someone $X if they do Y.
“We’ll give you $50 if you buy our $150 table” is exactly the same as “We’ll cut the price of our $150 table to $100”.
Giving a company a tax break of $X if they stand on their head in the middle of Times Square is exactly the same thing as the Government giving them $X if they stand on their head in the middle of Times Square.
Giving a company a tax break of $X if they create a job is exactly the same as giving them $X if they create a job.
He has a product nobody else has and you do not think that is demand? Make sense. He has a corner on the demand. That is why it is successful. If nobody wanted the product he would have gone under a long time ago.
Do you have more money left in pocket if you buy the something at 100 than if you had at 150 ? About exactly as much as if a totally unrelated person had just handed you 50 bucks as you were exiting the store (most probably for nefarious reasons ! Don’t take the money, you fool !) ? And didn’t Walmart, by slashing 50 bucks off the original price, not end up with 50 fewer of your precious dollars ?
Well, there you go. Net effect is exactly the same as if Walmart had sold you the thing for 150, then gave you a free 50 for shits and giggles.
How amazing, you’ve discovered the difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics.
If you go into the store with $100, and buy a table normally priced at $150, you walk out of the store with no money and a table. You did not get $50 back in your pocket. You have a table, the value of which can only be determined by selling it or using it in some economic activity, which is what we are trying to do. We could give companies money to do the same thing, but then we have no guarantee the money will be used properly. The goal here is to get people to work doing something productive, so they will pay taxes, and your quibbling over perceived values and exchanges does not address that at all.
You walk into the store with $100 in your pocket, and walk out with $0 and a table. Yeah, you didn’t suddenly make $50. Except when you compare yourself to the hypothetical guy who walked into the store with $100, and walks out with a table, and owes the store $50. You’ve made $50 compared to him.
The notion that tax breaks are somehow something different than handing out money is ubiquitous and nonsensical.
You go into the store to buy the $150 table. The clerk gives you $50, to which you add your $100 dollars, and you buy the table. You leave the store with a table and no money.
Same diff.
Your notion that a table is the same as money is nonsensical. The difference between a table and money is what economics is all about. And it still does not address the issue of job creation. Come back when have rational argument germane to the topic.
I agree that there’s a difference between a table and $150, and there’s also a difference between a table and $100, and there’s a difference between $100 and $150.
What I don’t agree is that there’s a difference between walking in the store with $100 and walking out with a table, because they cut the price of the table to $100, and walking into the store with $100 and walking out with a table because they charged you $150 then gave you a $50 rebate.
Yes, there would be a difference. For instance you would pay sales tax on the $150, not $100. And the store has $150 marked in their books as a receivable, and the $50 marked as a payable. That’s what economics is about, the changes in value based on the exchange of goods and services, and money. Economics is not a zero sum game because of the changing perceptions of value and the relationships formed in the exchanges. Our problem is not a lack of jobs, it’s a lack of economic activity, and a large part of that is from the insufficient number of jobs, which concentrates wealth and money, leading to a decrease in economic activity, eliminating growth potential. The solution is to increase economic activity, and job creation is one way to do that, and it is far more effective than giving out money to people.
Now this isn’t some hare-brained scheme. It is the system employed during the greatest period of economic growth in history. The ‘tax shelter’ system employed during the 1950s when the top income tax rate was 90% encouraged people to invest in business so that they could avoid paying high tax rates, and still get the gains of their investments. This system was ideally suited for small business investment which tends to concentrate investment in job creation, creating a broader tax base, and increasing overall economic activity. We replaced that with ‘supply side’ economics, which were basically anti-competitive business regulations (the business regulations that businesses pay the politicians for while complaining about over-regulation), and a corresponding shift in the tax burden to the lower end of the scale, while eliminating the need for businesses to invest in growth.
So stop quibbling over nonsense and try addressing the issue. We need economic growth or we will eventually face economic collapse. We cannot maintain a steady state because of the massive debt we’ve accumulated, and people keep having children. Economic growth comes from increased economic activity, and jobs are vital part of that activity.
Microeconomics adds up.
Understand, I’m being told that it’s not possible, at all, to start a business. And yet, it is.
People ask who the job creators are. I say again; small business. Not shadow corporations, which isn’t a “small business” even if it is a corporation, but actual small businesses.
We hear it over and over again how small businesses create most of the jobs. Both parties say it repeatedly. And I don’t believe it. Every year, a bunch of small businesses create a lot of jobs, to be sure. But I dare say a boatload go under every year, taking their jobs with them. I’d like to see some actual data seeing number of jobs gained and lost each year for big corporations vs. small businesses. My guess is that GM can gain or shed more jobs each year than the net gain for all the small businesses put together. Of course, if the facts are indeed otherwise I’ll accept it.
From the SBA.