Do tax breaks for the rich really create jobs?
Nick Hanauer, a venture capitalist states consumers create jobs and not the wealthy. He claims the rich only hire if consumers are buying goods and products and that there are not enough wealthy to support our economy. He says, "If it were true that lower tax rates and more wealth for the wealthy would lead to more job creation, then today we would be drowning in jobs. And yet unemployment and under-employment is at record highs."
I voted for President Bush,believing tax breaks would create jobs. Somehow I got suckered into believing that money would trickle down to start up new businesses and jobs. Did it? NO. And yet Romney wants us to believe it will. If Romney is elected, we will have more of the same from the past.
I don't know if giving more wealth to the wealthy actually is the correct idea or not. i think it more has to do with the more business, a business does then the more people that they would have to hire to keep up with making whatever they are selling.
no they don't create jobs. i know some really wealthy people and they will tell you the same thing. what it does help though is to keep them doing business in your country but even that isn't as true as it used to be.
I don't know if it would create jobs or not, but I can tell you from my own personal experience that I had to shut down one of my companies because of the huge amount of taxes for this and taxes for that. The amount of money I had to pay out in taxes was enough that would have allowed me to keep my employees. Instead, I had to let people go so that I could pay the taxes. If I could have had a break of some type, I could have kept the employees. Eventually, I ended up closing the business down just to keep the madness down.
A lot of people think business owners are all greedy, but that's not the case. The majority of people have no idea how businesses (small ones in particular) are taxed to death. Those taxes cut into profits. I know for a fact that at the time I made the decision to close down my company and let employees go was in direct relation to the huge amount of taxes my company was being charged. I can't speak for other business owners, but I can say that if I could have received a break, I might still be in business and I might still be employing people.
I understand what you're saying MarleneB, but from my perspective I disagree. I too had a business with 10 employees who I paid a fair salary, commission and bonus. A lack of customers, not too many taxes caused me to let them go.
Marlene, from the early 1970s to the present, there has been an ever-growing number of stories like yours. Increases in regulations and taxes have driven a whole lot of enterprises, large and small, out of business.
OK. Well, pagesvoice, I guess it depends on whose perspective we see it from - what's considered fair, and whatnot. My experience was totally different from your experience. Nevertheless, I took my tax accountant's advice.
Pagesvoice, Ditto! I had to downsize, not do to taxes but lack of business. Had to let 5 people go, the loss of income forced me to downsize. This allowed me to keep my doors open for the others and myself. Adjustments had to be made.
Tax increases = Less money in people's pockets.
Less money in people's pockets = Down trends in consumption and customer bases.
No doubt about it, tax breaks for the rich do generate jobs.
And that is because among the rich are big-time consumers, savers, investors and contributors to charities -- each of which are things that serve to generate jobs.
Thus, when the rich see tax decreases, less of their money goes to government and more of it spills into the economy. And the more money that spills into the economy, the more new jobs, new businesses, new workers for charities, and I could go on.
I must also say that the relatively-high rate of unemployment in the U.S. does not stem from such things as the rich not being taxed enough and the "outsourcing of American jobs." It is rooted in the fact that the job market is undergoing the greatest transition in the history of the country.
For quite some time now, the U.S. has been transforming from being a "manufacturing nation" to being a "high-tech nation." And the workforce and other segments of society have not caught up with that change yet, but they will in the future.
What is going on now is a present-day version of when the introduction of the automobile to society put a whole lot of blacksmiths and buggy makers out of work.
Henry Ford purposely paid his employees a fair wage so they could afford the cars they manufactured. So my question today is where are the jobs rich people made? Tax breaks for the rich do not work. Middle class needs the income to sustain us.
Tell all the folks employed by New England yacht builders that the rich do not generate high-paying jobs. And tell that to all the well-paid folks who work in Silicon Valley, CA.
feenix, I agree with what you say about the U.S. transitioning into a high-tech nation. It's written all over everything being done these days. Even the way politicians operate is going "techno". And, I do believe tax breaks for the rich works.
Way back in the 1970s, an author named John Naisbitt wrote a couple of books entitled "Megatrends." And those writings were quite prophetic in that they predicted everything that is going on today in the U.S. workforce and economy.
feenix, it is interesting that you mention Megatrends. I ran across it when I moved last year. I thought about reading it again. It's almost like, John Naisbitt wrote it, therefore, it must happen.
No, tax breaks for the rich do not creat jobs. The bush tax cuts only added to the deficit. Jobs continued to decrease for about seven years after the Bush tax cuts. There is only one example in the last hundred years when tax cuts were followed by more jobs. There are many examples of tax cuts followed by fewer jobs. They don't work and the party pushing them doesn't work for working people. It is a shame that our collective memory is so short that we believe a 30 second sound bite and forget the past.
no doubt about it, they DO NOT. The records speak for themselves. Since the wealthy have had these exorbitant tax breaks the number of jobs have not gone up, but rather have gone down. To think that continuing giving breaks to the wealthy will in anyway produce more jobs is insane. The definition of insanity is: doing the same things over and over again and expecting a different outcome each time.
The only thing that these tax breaks produce is more wealth for the politicians in the form of their own personal monetary gains.
I think this justification for tax breaks for wealthy people is based on "trickle-down" economics ... which is based on the belief that IF you make sure that the WEALTHY have lots of WEALTH, then THAT (wealth) will "trickle down" to less-wealthy people in the form of wages, for jobs to make the goods or provide the services that the wealthy "need" or "want". We've had plenty of opportunity to learn that "trickle down" economics DOESN'T WORK!!! Even George HW Bush, HIsself, referred to it as "voodoo" economics.....
It has a pleasant ring to the ears of those who ARE wealthy... and those who ARE wealthy get to INFLUENCE those who can keep or change the taxing rules... so we hear of this (trickle down"), ad infinitum as justification for leaving Federal tax codes and rules as they are......
What tax favors do is steer investment into areas chosen by government. It may choose those areas out of genuine national security motives, from outright influence peddling by politicians, or anything in between. In general, if the tax incentives to put capital into such a favored investment were not there, it would still be invested in something, that something would still require labor, and so the answer to the question is that tax "breaks" for those who have money to invest have little or no effect on the overall number of jobs. All they do is shift money around, reward politicians' friends, and punish politicians' enemies.
The point is not whether they create jobs or not. First of all, the rich will always have some tax breaks, because all the politicians are rich, democrats and republicans alike, and they take care of their own. Secondly, I am against raising any more taxes. I don’t think that our government is spending money wisely and giving it more money is outright stupid. There are other solutions for their shortfall. The more that you give to those “poor people”, the more children they will bring to this world, without supporting them, and then ask for more money. When does that end?
We need to reevaluate assistance programs and give people a reason to rise up to the occasion and become better citizens, rather than throwing a few dollars at them, and keep them down low for generations.
Well now, the rich have enjoyed tax breaks for a while now... so where are the jobs?
by John Holden 4 years ago
Looking for this for ages, finally found it.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g
by Mike Russo 4 years ago
During Obama's state of the union speech, he stated that he wants the minimum wage raised and is going to raise it for federal employees. He implied this will create jobs. The republican party countered with: Where are the jobs?" House Republican Conference Chair Cathy...
by RickBurnett 8 years ago
If you were president, what would you do to create jobs?
by shazz01109 9 years ago
After all of the bailouts, TARP, etc., it seems that Obama and Congress are just spending $ that we don't have like drunken sailors. Shouldn't there be more focus on creating jobs, and improving the economy?
by ptosis 18 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 Dennis L. Page 6 years ago
Where are the jobs?Should companies that outsource jobs receive tax breaks equal to the employers that keep jobs within a country's borders? If yes, why do you feel that philosophy is acceptable?
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|