A. Is it morally wrong for the top 1% to pay the lowest average tax rates in 50 years - while attacking our social programs?
B. Do employers hire additional employees without increased demand?
C. Should wage earners have higher tax rates than those who make money off of money?
D. Should the poor be forced to go to a church if they need help?
E. At what point is greed more important than community?
Support(v):to pay the costs of.
The working class are not paying the costs to support the wealthy. It is the other way around. No other group pays more of every dollar, or more in total dollars, to the tax base, than the top 1%. By definition, they are paying more than an equal share, so they are supporting everyone else.
A - No, the top 1% are still paying much higher rates than anyone else in the country. They are paying while nearly half of the country pays nothing at all.
B - Sometimes. Sometimes that leads to a business closing down too.
C - Ideally there should be no distinction.
D - Forced is a naughty word. We should avoid forcing people to do things, because that takes away their freedom.
E - You can't take away greed without taking away freedom, and freedom is always the most important.
Not true. First of all, the top tax rate was 94% in the past. It was 70% as recently as 1980. And the wealthy are paying the smallest percent of their income in taxes in 60 years.
The wealthy pay more federal income tax, but everyone else pay a higher percent of income on sales and other taxes.
Rich folk do not create demand - there are simply not enough of them. A person can only wear one pair of shoes at a time, can only drive one car or live in one home at a time. The wealthy do not use more toilet paper or toothpaste.
The rich do not create jobs out of the kindness of their greedy hearts.
Working people create jobs and support the economy by creating demand.
The only way working people have disposable income is if they are compensated well.
If the greedy few at the top weren't hoarding all of the money, our economy would be running like a top.
Ok, three people go to a restaurant.
They all have lobster. The bill is $100. Person 1 pays $90, Person 2 pays $15, and Person 3 takes $5. Is person 3 supporting Person 1? By definition, Person 1 is supporting Person 3.
They go again. Person 1 pays $85. Person 2 pays $15. Person 3 pays nothing. Yeah, Person 1 isn't paying as much as last time, but he's still supporting Person 1.
It's clear you just have a bias against rich people, and that's too bad. They do create most of the jobs(jobs are not demand), and through jobs that they create, they create more demand. JOB CREATORS are the fuel for the process. Employees create demand through the money they are paid.
How did the Person 1 get that $90? He was not born with it. He has it because he got it from someone else. He got by profiting off of Persons 2 & 3 & 4 & 5...
I have a bias against people who believe that greed and profit are inherently good things. I have a bias against people who believe that they should be upheld and given favors simply for having money.
How can you say that jobs are not demand? That is an astoundingly ignorant statement.
There is no job if there is no demand. There is no product if there is no demand. There is no bank loan without a reasonable expectation of demand.
The only way there is any demand is if the citizenry have disposable income.
Rich people simply cannot create demand to support an economy because there are not enough of them.
How can a few hundred or a few thousand or even a few million - replicate the demand of 300 million people?
Jobs are not demand. You can create a job that isn't in demand. It just won't be profitable. You can make a product if there is no demand, it just won't sell.
Let me ask you this. Imagine everyone is unemployed. 100%.
What is going to help the country more? If 100% of people go out looking for jobs, or if 100% of people go out creating jobs for themselves?
You are confused. Demand for jobs? Why would a rich person need a job. Our tax code favors investment and debt over wages and equity.
There has always been demand for jobs because there has never been full employment. And 4% unemployment is considered full employment btw.
There can only be a job if there is demand for the product or service the job is for. Demand for products and services.
How did you get so confused? I was very clear;
"Rich folks do not create demand... A person can only wear one pair of shoes... The wealthy do not use more toilet paper or toothpaste. "
Again, rich people don't buy enough products to create enough demand to support our economy.
I'm not confused. I'm explaining how jobs and demand are not the same thing. Just because unemployed people want jobs doesn't mean they are the ones who create the jobs.
I know about the 4% unemployment as well, although that isn't fixed in stone.
As I said before, there can be a job if there is no demand for the product or service that it provides, it's just an unprofitable job.
The job creators create the demand. It doesn't matter how much one individual person spends, a much greater impact comes from creating jobs, which stimulate demand, which open up new jobs, which stimulate demand.
I've explained this in detail elsewhere, but nobody creates jobs, or demand for jobs(as in demand for the products or services that jobs provide), except for entrepreneurs. Joe Sixpack, with his $20,000 checking account, is just an intermediary.
THE BIG LIE
Article from Business Insider: Rich People do not Create Jobs
Certain people here on Hubpages continue to promulgate The Big Lie that rich people "create most of the jobs." It's utter nonsense.
Jobs and demand are two different things.
Nobody contests that poorer people tend to spend a larger percentage of their income.
That's what poor means - all of your income goes right back out in groceries, rent, gas, etc...
That's why food stamps are such a good program, the money goes directly back into the economy. And that is how every dollar in food stamps generates $1.80 in the economy.
The economy creates the jobs and the economy destroys jobs. Wow.
Jobs are a product of the healthy functioning of the system as a whole. Most jobs are not created by rich people, as was previously stated in this thread.
I'd argue but it would be to no avail. Other threads show how an economy is driven, this one just, forget it.
Yeah, jobs are created by people with no money...
Who said that? Most people work for small businesses created by people who are not rich, which is not the same as having no money.
Of course, you know that, don't you?
Most jobs are created by people who are considered wealthy.
25% of jobs come from small businesses. Only 5% or so of small businesses have more than 10 employees. (Small business = up to 500 workers). The majority of small-business jobs comes from larger small businesses, ranging from 50-500 employees, and the owners of those businesses are wealthy(generally).
Even more jobs come from large, wealthy corporations.
Most of the not-rich people who try to create jobs end up going out of business, or having a small firm of 1 person.
Since the OP referred to the 1%, I assumed that was what you meant by "rich." Now, you are using the term "considered wealthy."
It doesn't really matter because, once again, you are repeating the lie that the "rich" (your term) are job creators. It is a vast oversimplification and factually wrong.
Your figures here in this latest reply are also mostly wrong, at least according to the SBA.
Thanks Pretty, I compiled my data from two sources, looking at them I realize they used different definitions for 'small business'.
No one is arguing that poor people are in position to hire a staff. That is just plain stupid...
A job is not created by an employer.
A job is created when the public - i.e. the working people - demand a product of service.
If jobs were created by employers... the gov't is the largest employer, so there goes the argument that gov't doesn't create jobs.
So which is it? Is the gov't our most successful job creator - or does demand create jobs?
by Jesusjohn78 2 years ago
Everyone hates the "rich" and I do not understand why. I was always under the impression the American dream was to become successful and stay successful? SO why are we always trying to punish the rich?
by Scott S Bateman 100 minutes ago
In my experience, they are more than they are not. Science backs it up. Your thoughts?https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/spe … 503c1fe516
by HuntersWhitt 5 years ago
We've been having a really great discussion on tax rates today, and I've been noticing an underlying theme throughout the thread, so I'll just ask the "tough question" directly. This question has three parts:A) Should the wealthy have to pay a larger percentage in taxes in order to...
by Stump Parrish 3 years ago
The tax cuts that are being debated in Washington have been described as a jobs creating nessessity by the republicans. These tax cuts have been in effect for 10 years now and I have to wonder where all the jobs they created during their existence, have gone. Are we to believe that they will...
by ptosis 13 months ago
federal income tax rates history, During the eight years of the Eisenhower presidency, from 1953 to 1961, the top marginal rate was 91 percent. (It was 92 percent the year he came into office.)What does it mean, though? For the duration of Eisenhower’s presidency, that rate affected individuals...
by GA Anderson 4 years ago
The gist of the new Congressional Budget Office, (CBO), report on the effects of Obamacare on the U.S. economy is that it will cause a reduction in works hours equivalent to about 2 million jobs by 2017.Here is just one link from a Washington Post story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plu...
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|