Why do we tax the rich at all ?

I mean, these are the job creators. If we increase their taxes they won’t want to create more jobs. Seems to me then we should give them an even better tax break so they’ll want to create more jobs then they are presently doing.
I want to create jobs too. Truth be told I’m a small business man/self employed who now and then employs people. I want to employ people because I make money off their labour.

Only thing is, I’m held back at times because the demand for my services doesn’t always allow me to have an employee or two. I’m trying to figure out how a tax break on my earnings is going to want me to hire an extra employee, especially when I can write off the cost of his labour as well.
Can you Republicans explain how this actually works to me ?

{Raises hand, waves it wildly back forth}

Ooh, ooh, I know, I know, but I’m not a Republican. Can I answer anyway?

You’ve confused corporate taxes with the top marginal tax rate.

Go back three spaces and roll again.

For the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks.

No I haven’t. When looking at my own situation, I’m not a corporation and my understanding regarding eliminating the Bush tax cut for the wealthy has nothing to do with corporate taxes.

Taxation of the rich = Robbery ?

I haven’t seen this side of you before.

Please do.

It’s a lie. Republicans think people are stupid and will belive anything. I think they’re right.

Well, contrary to popular belief, I’m not a Republican, but I’ll answer anyway:

Because they are citizens just like everyone else, they use the various services that are the reason for the taxes, and there is no reason why they shouldn’t pay taxes.

Assuming you actually believe and understand this, they are amply rewarded for it already. Again, this is no rational reason why they shouldn’t pay any taxes.

Depends on how much and how you increase the taxes. If you lower the taxes to nothing there might be some non-zero benefit, jobs creation-wise, but not enough to make up the huge loss in government revenue for allowing ‘the rich’ to not pay taxes. If you raise their taxes to 100% you will certainly have a large drop off in jobs creation and corporations, as well as a decrease in government revenue. Depending on where you set the bar in-between those two extremes you are going to get varied results of jobs creation/capital investment and government revenue.

Start a viable company that employes people. Seemingly it’s easy, based on the answers you generally get in these threads. Of course, luck plays a huge part, again seemingly, so hopefully when someone gives you a company you will also be lucky enough for it to be successful as well.

A tax break right now probably isn’t going to change the equation for you. The only thing that would change the equation is for an increase in demand for whatever it is you do. If you were a big corporation, however, a tax break or tax deferment might entice you to expand or shift manufacturing or support services to some new area (that’s how my county has lured in several large companies in the past few years…no CORPORATE tax for a period of years), though even at the large scale it’s more about demand than anything right now, and there doesn’t seem to be anything that’s going to spur demand while the economy continues to drag.


So you did a little work on the side, made good money and paid 10% of it in taxes. It meant more money in your pocket and that’s a good thing. You did a good job so there is more demand allowing you to put in more hours, but each hour was then taxed at 15% meaning you took in less money for your efforts. Your first 10 hours of work per week paid $8,350 less 10% in taxes, your second 10 hours paid $8,350 less 15% in taxes.

There was still enough demand that you decided to hire help, but now the next 10 hours are taxed at 25%. Each person you hire requires more work on your part, brings in more revenue, but that gets taxed at an increasingly higher rate.

Is there ever a point where you’d say, “screw it, I’m not taking another job if I only get 50% of the pay.”

It’s a good thing for him. That doesn’t have anything to do with tax rates

Based on what? The GoodJob Fairy?

If he’s making $835 an hour, and he’s got a market to stay in business with, he’s paying the top rate any way. A little more business isn’t changing his tax rate at all.

Again, no, and no.

You hire people because they are going to generate more revenue than you can with your time. And again, its the top rate already, it doesn’t increase.

Sure. Luckily, even though I pay the top rate, it isn’t 50%.

Drinking a glass of red wine a day is healthy, why not drink 6 bottles a day?

Oh these children, they know so little of American culture.

Hint: When Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, he answered “because that is where the money is.” Kapeesh?

The business columnist (who usually drifts right) made this exact point in the paper today, basically that the notion that tax increases on the rich will hurt job creation is bullshit, even for business people like you. I am also eagerly awaiting a real response to your question as opposed to a response to your thread title.


Got it.

Cite (not seriously)? I know this is Republican dogma, but we’ve been running the experiment for 12 years now, and job creation is at it’s lowest level in eighty years, and unemployment is at it’s highest since WWII. We’ve given all of these rich folks huge tax breaks, and kept them on the books for over a decade, when is it supposed to start working?

No they’re not. What a silly thing to say.

How many employees does the average welfare recipient have?

Typically a larger company with more employees will provide the owner with a greater income than a smaller company with fewer employees.

If the government raises a business owner’s taxes, the best way for him to maintain the same income would be to expand and hire new employees, not shrink and lay people off.

Exxon employsover 81,000 worldwide. That’s going skew the curve among the other welfare recipients.