jump to last post 1-13 of 13 discussions (330 posts)

Nick Hanauer "Rich people don't create jobs"

  1. John Holden profile image61
    John Holdenposted 2 years ago

    Looking for this for ages, finally found it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g

    1. Silverspeeder profile image60
      Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this
      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Well that seems to support the vid I posted, are you sure you watched it?

        1. HowardBThiname profile image91
          HowardBThinameposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I watched the video and I'll give Hanauer one thing - he's a master at slinging the propaganda.

          But - he's wrong. He touched on supply and demand, but he made a stupid comment that businesses don't hire until consumers create demand for their product. That's just ignorant. Business startup costs are huge and they often hire many, many workers BEFORE their products are selling. How can they sell a product or a service if they don't hire someone first to make it?

          He's right about income disparity, but his charts are awful and he throws out unsubstantiated claims. Then he insinuates that the rich pay less on capital gains when everyone pays EXACTLY the same rate - unless they are poor and their capital gains (from the sale of a residence) is low. Then, they pay nothing.

          The guy might be a savvy venture capitalist - but he's an economic idiot.

          1. rhamson profile image75
            rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            ……but he made a stupid comment that businesses don't hire until consumers create demand for their product.

            This is basic supply and demand. While there may be a need to hire more to supply the demand of a startup product or the success of an established one, a manufacturer will usually go with increased hours for its production shifts before it makes new hires. I know of a few manufacturers in my industry that do this as a matter of policy. They do not come out with a product or predict popularity of a product and automatically hire because the risk is too high. With the low skilled jobs that are being offered as a result of robotics and advanced mechanization  it is easy to train and get up to speed quickly if new hires are warranted down the road.

            1. HowardBThiname profile image91
              HowardBThinameposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              "This is basic supply and demand. While there may be a need to hire more to supply the demand of a startup product or the success of an established one, a manufacturer will usually go with increased hours for its production shifts before it makes new hires."

              This is ONE aspect of supply and demand - but it's not the whole story. Consider the housing industry -- housing starts are an economic indicator and yet most contractors build houses on speculation and hope they're going to attract buyers. Even if it's the contractor's first home - he will take a calculated risk and he will have to hire a framing crew, electricians, excavators, roofers, drywallers, plumbers and a foundation crew BEFORE he knows whether the house will sell. That means sinking some or all of his own money in the project. Speculation.

              Speculation is the drive behind new business. I understand what you're saying - but it relates more to business expansion than anything else. Starting a business is a financial risk - albeit a calculated risk.

              1. rhamson profile image75
                rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I happen to know and work with a lot of general contractors and you could not be more off than I can possibly explain. In a recent conversation with a good friend who used to build spec homes he said he has not built one in five years. Instead the market is towards commercial and apartment construction. As far as hiring electricians and plumbers goes most new construction based companies are turning towards service and repair work as the new construction is very sluggish. General contractors hire independent crews to avoid healthcare insurance and Workman's Compensation. I will concede that as far as minimum wage jobs go there is work and they hire before the demand is immediately realized. A new McDonalds is opening less than a half mile from another one in my town. Beginning wage is $8:00 per hour. But McDonalds does not build and hire unless an adequate survey has been done and brings favorable information.

              2. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                There is always demand for housing.

                1. rhamson profile image75
                  rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Absolutely! But new homes are not where the market is. There is a massive inventory of used houses that are either foreclosures or short sales. These glut the market and create no new jobs and as a result no buyers. The banks are selling them to get them off their books but no new jobs of any significant wages are being created in the housing market. When they say housing starts are up they are merely better than the depressed state the industry is in.

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Thanks for understanding what I meant by my rather quick and crass comment. You saved my blushes.
                    Obviously nobody builds spec. housing when there is no demand for new houses. But that does not mean there is no demand for housing.

              3. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, and part of that calculation, a major part, is demand. Nobody is going to start a business and hope that the demand is there. Well nobody with an ounce of sense that is.
                It is obvious that if the economy is stalled there will be little demand for anything at all and therefore jobs aren't created. Increase the amount of disposable cash that the middle classes have and remove the uncertainty of employment and you will create demand which will stimulate growth and new jobs which will increase tax revenues and reduce public spending.

                1. rhamson profile image75
                  rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I think the most salient issue in this case is the availability of disposable income. Demand is generated by sales and if money is tight as in the unemployed available funds, spending is curtailed sharply. There will always be spending in staples but that is not what drives job creation. Hanauer outlined that the rich cannot cure it as there is only so many cars and clothes they can buy. The gigantic consumer economy is driven by the masses spending. There is only so much job creation in the military and that is government deficit spending. The other aspect of that is you need to have wars to establish its need. We as a country need to get on board with this as right now the new norm is one of higher cost consumables and stagnant wages with little disposable income to spark a economic comeback.

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, it all seems so obvious that I expected my post to be greeted with hoots of derision and stating the bleeding obvious.
                    I should have known better. I should have remembered that the capitalists have their lackeys so well trained that they are totally blind to the obvious.

                2. Silverspeeder profile image60
                  Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  How many people demanded the IPhone before it was invented then? How many people demanded the steam engine, the canal, the aircraft etc etc? Sometimes the demand comes after the start of the business and the investment.
                  Where will you get the extra tax money if its not from the middle classes? Will it be from the top 1% who already pay the most in tax anyway? Wont they just move like they have in the great socialist French experiment? How many countries with lower tax rates would love to take these top 1% of earners of our hands? Don't forget the 1960's 70's 80's were a different place with different economics all together. Now the rich American doesn't need to use American workers to maintain his fortune, why would he need the American government to deplete it for him?
                  Its obvious less taxation. less red tape and less government intervention is the only spur to economic growth.
                  Making up government jobs to spread the wealth and centralise power will only serve to turn a country into Greece 2.

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    There would be no demand for the I-phone if nobody could afford it. As it is few actually buy it, they rent it.
                    There was obviously a demand for cheaper and more efficient transport, the first canal reduced the price of coal by 50% and increased output.
                    You forget as well that Victorian entrepreneurs took risks that 21st century shareholders would never dream of.

                    Where does the extra tax money come from? What extra tax money?  But remember that a vibrant and healthy economy generates more, and uses less, tax than a moribund and stifled economy.

                    The rest of your post is so off topic that I shall ignore it.

      2. Silverspeeder profile image60
        Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXh9aoGmkBE

        Not as cut and dried as it seems

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          How so? Are you arguing that tax cuts for the rich do create jobs?

          1. Silverspeeder profile image60
            Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            No John

            I will argue for fare taxes for everyone.
            I don't see how taxing exorbitant amounts creates anything and I don't see how taxing the middle earners more to give to the poor creates jobs either.

            As you know, here in the UK the top 1% pay the majority of the tax so how will it help by taxing them any more?
            I think a top rate of tax at 45% is fine, what the government should concentrate on is reducing the cost of government itself and then enable a tax cutting culture instead of a tax raising culture.
            I believe I have said before that it is a circle of consumer and supplier that creates an economy, governments create nothing except tax spending schemes.

            I also believe that entrepreneurs can create both jobs and wealth, However the more successful they become the more governments think they should be taxed and that's when job losses and wealth movement happens. Eg James Dyson

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              As I thought, you didn't watch it.

              1. Silverspeeder profile image60
                Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I watched it John and I also watched another 10 all contradicting each other. Its the opinion of one man, are you saying you would totally trust the opinion of one man on a matter so serious as the world economy?

                Its obvious you either didn't read my post or didn't understand it.

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Because his point was that the top 1% or 5% or what ever top percent do not create jobs, the middle classes do by spending money.

                  The trickle down theory has been proved time and time again not to work but main stream parties still continue to use it.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    So, why punish the rich? I know, I know... because they do not pay their fair share. But if you tax someone based on how much they make, and they make a lot:  they get taxed a lot… Shouldn't they be encouraged to do what they do because what they do helps the economy, provides goods to the middle class to buy and sell and provides jobs.

                    The industrious should have incentives to do what they do. Why don't you want them to do what they do?

      3. rhamson profile image75
        rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Your John Stossel video as a response is quite interesting and essentially counters the Nick Hanauer video by saying that business confidence in the economy drives job creation while Nick Hanauer counters that consumer confidence is what creates jobs. They parallel each other in some ways but seem to need a catalyst to make either go first. Nick Hanauer counters with the idea of raising taxes on the rich. How much? He makes a comparison between what the working class tax rates are at some estimates of 35% while the rich of which he is, reduce their tax rate through carried interest, dividend, and lower capital gains tax rates that make the rich pay an adjusted rate of 15%. How much of an increase Hanauer does not specify but bringing it back up to what the working rate is can be assumed from his comments. Now if the argument is less government is key component as was outlined by former Governor Gary Johnson and we know that the rich are sitting on possible investment funding waiting for the regulations and government growth to subside why can’t that happen? As a compromise can the tax rates that essentially have the rich paying 20% less be brought up to what the working tax rates are? Two compromises that could jump start the economy. Both sides get their way and a fair taxation of both sides will dispel any thought that someone is taking advantage of the other.

    2. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Another good source for information in this area is Robert Reich's "Inequality for All". He systematically outlines how the job creators are actually the middle class consumer. Even as we speak candidates here in Maryland are talking about lowering tax rates for corporations from 8% to 6 1/2%. The talking points remain the same and so do the results.

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Wasn't he co author of a book with Nick Hanauer?

        There are a lot of turkeys voting for Christmas, or I suppose in the US it would be turkeys voting for thanksgiving.

        1. rhamson profile image75
          rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I am not sure but I do believe he was involved in the movie.

  2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    The rich do not create jobs. No, they just spin straw into gold. Probably a couple of princesses do the spinning, held against their will, hidden away in some tower.
    Those darn rich.

  3. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    The OP's premise is off.  Nick's premise is Off.

    Taxing the rich serves to *punish* (cause negative consequences to) the industrious and stops their industriousness.

    What creates a percolating economy?

    Not the Rich, (which potentially, contributes greatly...) and not the Government, (which potentially contributes little.)

    It is caused by a business-friendly environment: Less rules, regulations, and *punishments,* ( negative consequences.)

    In two words:                         M o r e    F r e e d o m


    Taxation =                            L E S S   F R E E D O M

    But, of course, we must see to it that the laws already in place against loopholes, government bailouts, and monopolies are enforced, for  "...what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint." Edmund Burke

    Freedom within boundaries is the proper premise.

    1. Zelkiiro profile image85
      Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Choo-choo! All aboard the Post-Apocalyptic Cyberpunk Dystopia Express!

      (For those who live under a rock and have no idea what I'm referring to...)

    2. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      A multillion applauses to you, Kathryn.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        and to you! And to Silverspeeder!

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Applause to all who either totally miss the point or who suck up to the rich no matter what!

          1. Silverspeeder profile image60
            Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            John we don't miss the point, you do....................

            Because taxation doesn't create jobs either, a point you seem to have missed entirely.

  4. Zelkiiro profile image85
    Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago
  5. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    "Classic cyberpunk characters were marginalized, alienated loners who lived on the edge of society in generally dystopic futures where daily life was impacted by rapid technological change, an ubiquitous datasphere of computerized information, and invasive modification of the human body." – Lawrence Person

       The conditions which create/contribute to a "one percent " must be understood in the light of reality.

    "The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion."
    Edmund Burke

    1. Zelkiiro profile image85
      Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      "...a closer look [at cyberpunk authors] reveals that they nearly always portray future societies in which governments have become wimpy and pathetic ...Popular science fiction tales by Gibson, Williams, Cadigan and others do depict Orwellian accumulations of power in the next century, but nearly always clutched in the secretive hands of a wealthy or corporate elite."

      1. Silverspeeder profile image60
        Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        The Empire always strikes back!

  6. John Holden profile image61
    John Holdenposted 2 years ago

    Do rich folk wake up in the morning and think "today I'll create a few jobs"

    And how many wake up and think "I can probably make a few bob doing that, how can I do that employing as few people as possible"?

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Do poor people wake up in the morning and think "today I'll create a few jobs"

      And how many wake up and think "I can save a few bob buying imported; I'll give MY money to China instead of Joe the neighbor.  But even if I can't find imported, I'll still shop around for the cheapest price - if my neighbors and friends really want me to buy what they make they'll have to take a pay cut to lower the prices".

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Wake up and think "I've got so little money that I will have to go out and buy the cheapest I can find regardless of where it was made and what quality it was made to"

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Well, when wants override ability to earn, that's what happens.  Greed, in other words - there is virtually no one starving in either of our countries and anyone willing to work can find a place to lay their head.  Greed for ever more luxuries produces that comment, not necessity.

  7. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    Rich people wake up and think "How can I get richer and who can help me?"
    Poor people wake up and say,
    "How can I survive another day with no money and no one to help me make money."
    Some, many,  do not have what it takes to make money, on a psychological level.
    Why shut down anyone with undreamed of possibilities?
    Let us have dreams and the freedom to act on them!
    The rich are lucky. The rich are just plain lucky. We should not try to cash in on their (usually, hard earned) luck. ( Nor should we fall victim to their schemes when they become overly ambitious through greed. Laws limit and check ever fallible human nature.)

    1. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I doubt they think "who can I pay to help me?"

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        WHY do you doubt that ????
        ?

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          How do you think people get rich?

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            certainly not by depending on their own hands doing the labor...they hire others to do that.  You of all people should recognize that simple fact.

        2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          The intelligent ones value good help and are willing to pay them. The good-for-nothing sons of intelligent and wise fathers, who inherit their father's businesses, are the ones who end up mistreating and/or taking advantage of the employees and/or replace them too easily.

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Dream on.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, life is just as Dickens described it. Get over it.

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                In some respects it is worse these days. Then nobody had any great expectations, now they have unexpected hard times.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  No, life has always been hard. Always. In many ways things are way easier today! In very many ways!!!

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    That's really getting off the topic though isn't it?

                    Remember "Rich people do not create jobs".

                2. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't follow that - examples of life being worse today than it was 150 years ago, please?  About all I can come up with is more stress, and I'm not sure even that is valid - now we have to worry about going on welfare, 150 years ago they worried about their children (and themselves) starving to death and being buried.

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I was going to give you a long list but -cost of living should cover most of them.

  8. rhamson profile image75
    rhamsonposted 2 years ago

    It is peculiar that the answer to this dilemma of who creates jobs has devolved into a class warfare discussion. Is that the real reason we cannot come to a solution? One has what the other wants and will not concede a solution? It seems that one side has an idea and the other side hates that idea so they will do nothing to change it. This is why this country will die a slow agonizing death because compromise is a game.

  9. John Holden profile image61
    John Holdenposted 2 years ago

    I find it quite amusing that some people seem to think that those providing jobs do so with their own money.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Not nearly amusing as those that think factories (that provide jobs) spring forth from the ground all by themselves, without workers building them, without investors providing funds for them, without architects designing them.

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        What's that about investors providing funds?

        Listening to you I could be lead to believe that one man provided all the money and did all the work.

    2. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      John, this is a spiraling out of control conversation. The answer is more of the same for some. No meeting of the minds and literally no change. No compromise is in sight.

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Well the nay sayers have it pretty much under control by actually avoiding the original point or just plain head in the sand disagreement. They are so indoctrinated that it is beyond the scope of this forum to un-brainwash them.

  10. John Holden profile image61
    John Holdenposted 2 years ago

    I think we need Kathryn's input here smile
    Providing isn't the same as creating.

  11. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    The middle class creates jobs.

    1. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Whoopee! She's got it.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        You Are Right.
        Finis. (?)

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          You going to give us a translation smile

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Edit:  What more is there to argue, define or translate? The middle class does not provide jobs. It creates them through the complicated process of supply and demand. Without the middle class, the rich are sunk.
            And...

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              What of?
              Are you the Hubpages censor? It ends when nobody can be bothered to post to it any more, not when you say so.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                See edit above.  I just meant, what more is there to argue? (people usually just show up to refute, as you might have noticed.)  I did not mean to euthanize your post.  sad

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Actually, I thought the thread would die a pretty quick death as, as far as I can see, the OP said all there was to say.

            2. gmwilliams profile image85
              gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              +1,000,000,000,000,000,000 spot on, Kathryn!

            3. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              That isn't the post I responded to!

              That is more or less what I was saying.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                (Thanks, gmwilliams)
                (Edit)
                More or less = kinda-sorta… can you continue on from "And..." ? So we know your definite stand, John?
                I guess that is a lot to ask big_smile

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Unfortunately you edited whilst I was posting!

                  Well, what I would have said more or less would be "What more is there to argue, define or translate? The middle class does not provide jobs. It creates them through the complicated process of supply and demand. Without the middle class, the rich are sunk. " But using different words.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Well, Thank You!

            4. rhamson profile image75
              rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Totally Agree!

              In America the link in the cyclical economic process was broken when the massive amount of jobs were lost due to their exportation. The rich continue to get rich and the poor get poorer.

              If an example of this is needed you just have to look towards China where a predominance of the jobs went. With jobs the Chinese economy has grown exponentially and is poised to surpass the US if it has not already done so. Is it the rich who created those jobs in China?

    2. Silverspeeder profile image60
      Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Who provide the jobs and wages for the middle class then? Did they create their own jobs!

      1. gmwilliams profile image85
        gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        It's RICH or WEALTHY people who PROVIDES jobs.  They have the means and capital to establish businesses and enterprises which employ people.   It was always the wealthy who created jobs.  They are the ONLY ONES who have the economic means to do so.

        1. Silverspeeder profile image60
          Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I know GM but it seems John doesn't understand this. Research and development is not financed by the middle class, Its not funded by governments unless it suits their purpose (like when they are trying to sell a policy to the electorate).
          The truth is that it is a big wheel which requires all the components to work in unison. The best wheels are always balanced.

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Research and development is driven by demand, nobody develops a new drug that it believes nobody will want or a new phone or a new anything.
            Much research is funded by government. Who do you really think the big drivers behind early computers was?

            If you actually bothered to read what others wrote you would have seen that I agreed with your final sentence.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              People "demanded" WD40?  Microwave ovens? Personal computers, or computers at all?  Silly Putty?  All before it was found?  Who are you trying to kid?

              While most R&D is intended to improve an existing product, it isn't because people are walking around demanding that it be improved.  It's to increase market share, not meet demand that already exists.  In only a few cases is research done to find a way to meet existing demand and that is almost always a tiny demand at that.  Companies hope that the product will increase that demand, but there is never a guarantee.  An example might be a hybrid or electric car; a handful of "greenies" wanted one, but never enough to make it practical - Toyota and others did the R&D in the hopes of greatly increase that minute demand level.

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                And who do they expect to increase that demand? it wouldn't be the consumer would it?

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  No, no - you claimed R&D was only done in response to existing demand.  I maintain, with concrete examples, that that is not true.  Can you refute?

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Read what I said again.

                    I didn't say it was driven by existing demand, sometimes that demand has to be stimulated hence heavily advertised products are in more demand (usually) than poorly advertised. It is still ultimately the consumer who demands that product, and the accompanying jobs, not the maker of the product.

                    Do you really think that the developers of WD40, personal computers and silly putty didn't believe there would be a demand for their product? That market research hadn't indicated that there would be a demand?

        2. rhamson profile image75
          rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          What proof do you have to support this statement? Merely repeating the talking point is just stating an opinion. Give us a basis. Have you seen Robert Reich's "Inequality For All"? It is a breakdown of the way the economy has worked for the last hundred years and totally refutes your claim. I dare you to watch it.

        3. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Wow! The rich both create and provide jobs! Some trick. They must be very busy.

      2. rhamson profile image75
        rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        ...Who provide the jobs and wages for the middle class then?

        The consumer provides this by providing money for the rich and the employees that sell the product. If there is no job there is no money to spend. If the rich created the jobs then there would be money to hire employees. If the lack of tax breaks and deregulation hold back the rich from creating jobs why is anybody working now?

        ...Did they create their own jobs!

        In essence they did by supplying the money necessary to keep the cycle moving between working and buying consumables.

  12. John Holden profile image61
    John Holdenposted 2 years ago

    Wilderness, I'm just listening to a program on the radio about self employment, specifically people who've been made redundant and chosen self employment over seeking JSA.

    Comments include

    " I get some work but not enough"
    "I work fourteen hour days but barely make a living"
    "The government gives us no help,instead they obstruct us at every turn"
    "Everybody is a gardener".
    "The government makes more out of my work than I do"
    "I walk dogs, plenty of work but I just make ends meet"

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I think I'd agree with anything said there.  It's tough to start up a business, and the hours are indeed long and often grueling.  The govt. (in the US) does throw a great many roadblocks in the way - blame the great unwashed, not the rich, for that.  Everybody is a gardener, and somehow that's the job too many choose to work at.  The govt. DOES take far too much - that's what we're talking about.

      And anyone that thinks walking a few dogs is going to provide a great living is going to find out very differently.  As a full time business, with multiple employees, it can be done; as a single person walking a few dogs it's a losing proposition.

      But NONE of that has anything to do with overtaxing the rich or with minimum wage except to graphically point out and prove that minimum wage (unlivable, according to you) CAN be turned down and the person survive.

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Well in an indirect way it is to do with over taxing. The common complaint was about how much the government took off the small self employed worker. As a percentage, much much more than the rich are required to pay.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I doubt that.  Only when one plays games with the numbers (what, exactly, is being taxed) does the small business pay a larger percentage.

          But can you explain (outside of "Because they have more we can get our hands on") why the rich should pay more in taxes than the middle class?  Not expressed as a percentage in order to make it look smaller, but in total dollars paid?

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            One bloke was a self employed courier who pays about £700 per month for his fuel before he earns a penny for himself. That equates to around £600 a month in tax to the government.
            Show me one of your favoured rich that pays anything like that rate of tax?

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Wow!  I knew fuel taxes were high in the UK, but 85% of the price paid?  And in the US, if the fuel is used in a business, to earn money, there is no tax.

              I pay approximately $500 per month in income taxes, which is 95% of the first $525 I take in.  MUCH higher than your business man, but then perhaps I'm rich.

              The point is that when you play games with the numbers, they get skewed far out of reality and turn into lies.  You want to talk about the tax rate of this bloke, talk about how much he pays vs how much he earns.  Not the payment vs a small portion of what he takes in.

              But in any case, those kinds of taxes are necessary to support a socialist government, that has chosen to provide cradle to grave support for all it's citizens.  It is perhaps the primary reason I don't like the socialist model - earnings belong to the country, not the person earning them.

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                For pities sake! We last had a socialist government over 35 years ago. This lot are even more right wing than your government.

                I take it you didn't bother to look at the link I posted.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Don't you think "socialistic" is a relative term?  Compare it to the US, specifically the welfare/giveaway programs and tax rates.

                  No, I seem to have missed you link somewhere.  Unless it was a long video - those aren't generally worth my time.

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    "See sanctions and Mark Wood

                    http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk … ssion.html"

                    Well from what you've said that the unemployed get in the US it's far more than our unemployed get. Therefore I repeat my claim that the US is more socialist than the UK.
                    Mind you there is nothing socialist about paying people not to work, that is straight down the line capitalism.
                    As for taxation you all commonly bleat that the US corporation tax is the highest in the developed world.

  13. John Holden profile image61
    John Holdenposted 2 years ago

    Silverspeeder, just to remind you of what Cameron actually promised before the 2010 election-

    "We will always look after the needy, the disadvantaged, the elderly, the frail and the poorest of our country. That is the sort of person I am."

    Not really very much in that about crucifying them is there?

    1. Silverspeeder profile image60
      Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      There are 5 million people on welfare benefits of one kind or another in this country, mistakes will be made (and publicised to death by the liberal left) but in general there are more people who benefit from the system than lose out.

      I will always be sympathetic to those who have lost their job through no fault of their own, I know that there are some who are in difficulty, I will also always defend the need to look after the disabled and sick the old and infirm but you will never get me to have sympathy for the people who decide to live their whole lives on the system, whether it be one or a hundred thousand and one, the system will always need checks and balances.

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        There are about 5 million unemployed and less than 1000 are long term unemployed, you'll punish the 5 million for the sins of the 1000!

        And i agree with you, the system does need checks and balances, desperately. All checks and balances have been removed by government. Do you know that something like one third of decisions by ATOS are appealed against and won?
        Is that a good use of our money?

        1. Silverspeeder profile image60
          Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          No John I said about 5 million receiving benefits, I will still dispute that there are only 1000 people out of work today that were out of work this time last year. However there are people who don't claim unemployment benefit but live their lives on other benefits.
          Here is an example, it is personal but its what I know to be true. My own niece has 4 children with no full time partner, she has received benefits for 9 years, she receives multiple benefits including tax credits and housing benefit, here youngest child is now 6 months old, again she has not had to name the father (although we know who he is), here reasoning is that she will not have to try and find work until the child is 4 (we expect he 5 child about this time. She is by no means unique, in her child's play group there are another 30 mothers (some I know personally) with about half being in the same situation as my niece.
          Do you think this is the best use of the welfare system or should we be doing something about it?
          Is this really good use of our money?

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Damn that woman! Force her to go out and find a man to marry and keep her.

            1. Silverspeeder profile image60
              Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Its too late for that John because she is part of the entitlement culture which have grown up under the previous government.
              However its not to late for the next generation!

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Not too late for what for the next generation?
                To provide meaningful and remunerative work?
                To provide adequate housing so that single women have another option to obtain housing over pregnancy?

                Stop blaming the victims of this usurious government. Over the last 35 years I've watched this country go to wrack and ruin, become a really divided society as bad as any third world country riddled with a handful of haves and a mass of have nots.

                1. Silverspeeder profile image60
                  Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  To educate them John.
                  To provide meaningful and lasting employment.
                  And yes to provide adequate housing for all, not just single women, that would be discriminatory wouldn't it?

                  Firstly John I don't blame the government I blame the electorate for letting it happen. If we would have all voted socialist there would be no benefit system would their? Work or starve being the message I believe ( I wonder how many or the entitlement breed would really starve to death then).

                  I also have watched this country go to rack and ruin but we have different ideas to why and different ideas on how to fix it.


                  On another note John (something that just come to mind) as you are the resident expert on socialism here is a question.
                  If under a socialist system a country obtained full employment a fair and just division of wealth and land would there be any immigration to that country?

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, a proper education, not a cannon fodder education would go a long way to help. And of course adequate housing for all, but I was answering a specific question from you.

                    Of course there would be a benefit system, the disabled would need care taking of them and the sick would need provision.

                    Indeed the ultimate blame is with the electorate (that part that can be bothered to vote and that bigger part that can't be bothered) but we've given them so much power that what we want is now pretty meaningless.

                    You don't agree that a major solution to our problems would be to get the country employed again then! What would be your solution?

                    Socialism is international, not national so of course there would be migration between countries.

 
working