The "fiscal cliff" is apparently the only news out there these days. That's all I hear...fiscal cliff...fiscal cliff...blah...blah...blah. Both sides agree spending will have to be cut. The devil will be in the details, I understand, but at least it's a start. The sticking point is taxing the rich. The Democrats say it will bring in a gazillion dollars and help reduce the deficit. The Republicans say it will cripple job creation.
Here is my question: How will raising taxes on the rich, the "job creators", hinder hiring?
The argument seems to be that if taxes go up on the rich (actually if the Bush tax cuts aren't extended to the rich), they won't have the capital (money) to finance new entrepreneurs or fund business expansion, therefore no new jobs.
Here's the fly in that ointment....the rich already have TRILLIONS of dollars (the Wall Street Journal estimates $1-2 Trillion) sitting on the sidelines not currently invested. Our economy isn't strong enough to support all these new businesses the Republicans envision, and there isn't any place in China or Europe to invest this money either. (China is slowing and Europe is a basket case.) It just sits.
The money to invest in new job creation is there NOW. How will any MORE money in the pockets of the wealthy create any new jobs? This money has been in their pockets for a DECADE, since the GW Bush administration. So where are the jobs?
Somebody please (honest question) explain in terms I can understand how tax cuts to the rich will somehow create new jobs while the money sitting there right now can't?
The wealthy seem to like the sound of the term "job creators" and have made it their justification for existing, and their Republican puppets in Congress happily spout it every chance they get without ever explaining it.
In fairness, let me admit right now I think an entirely different set of special interests are pulling the strings on their (Democratic) puppets in Congress, too. It's a pretty sleazy game they play in Washington and you and I are the big losers. If you'll just follow the money trail you'll see who the big winners are.
S
oh, yeah. I agree completely. If tax cuts to the rich created jobs we wouldn't be in the position we are in. Congress was bought a decade ago. been bought. The rich don't create jobs. The middle class creates jobs.
ReplyDeleteI agree. "Job Creation" is just the mantra they use to get what they want. You know, if all those dollars spent didn't get their candidate elected doesn't that seem to indicate that the "Amurican" people are not too sympathetic to the plight of the rich? I think most people see through that flimsy "Job Creation" label as the sham it is. (At least that's what I WISH was true - ha!)
ReplyDeleteI say go over the fiscal cliff and let all the unpaid Bush tax cuts expire, then let the Republicans vote against tax relief for the 98 percent. That won't help them very much in the 2014 elections. I don't believe the super rich are job creators.
ReplyDeleteI believe that many businesses are sitting on cash because they don't know how to invest it when government won't let them know what the "rules" will be in the "Tax" future. Regards to taxing those rich bastards that are at fault with everything in the world, I say lets tax the buggers now!
ReplyDeleteAfter we finally get around to punishing the productive people in the country, maybe both sides can sit down and figure out how to really cut the deficit, cause increasing the tax on the rich will only be one drop in the bucket...they already pay for over 80% of everything.
Points well taken, Joe. But back to my original question, how will raising taxes on the rich kill any new job creation? Is all this talk of "the job creators" just a bunch of bull? If money in the hands of the rich = jobs, then why don't they put the $1-2T they already have to work? If they would just say, "I worked hard, I worked smart, I invested wisely, I did well and I deserve it, go get your own", then I would applaud their honesty. But what's with this "job creators" charade?
ReplyDeleteS
The problem lies in the definition of "wealthy". Sure, the folks who are multimillionaires or billionaires will not be hideously affected to the point where they will have to cut workforce. However, when you start taxing folks who gross $250,000 as though they were all millionaires, that's when the trouble starts. That's a good gross paycheck, for sure, but after taxes NOW, you're looking at $150,000 net, tops. And if somebody wants to expand their business, by building on or by hiring for a new position or whatever else, you're talking much of that being chopped away and leaving the entrepreneur with no cash reserve for his own living.
ReplyDeleteIt's the SMALL businessmen who will go from profitable to breaking even. And that's where we start losing jobs, losing new start ups, etc.
Thanks Jim. That makes good sense. So that being the case, why can't both sides agree that $250K is too low a threshhold and agree to redefine "wealthy" as $750K or a Mil and up? Looks like they could agree to something, Jeez!
ReplyDeleteS
In total agreement...
ReplyDeleteY'know what the problem is? The media don't ask the plain questions of the politicians like you do!
ReplyDelete