9 Things The Rich Don't Want You To Know About Taxes

[Conan71]

Fixed it.

Why should the government, which is bound by far too many self-regulating codes and generally suffers from a lack of creativity be trusted to create worthwhile jobs?  The government does very little more efficiently than the private sector can do it.

[Teatownclown]

But that is what our tax code is all about--emotion. Those screaming "tax the rich" are not thinking about raising revenue. No, they are thinking that those who are "rich" corporations did so by gaming the system. They don't think how the "rich" demand gives the lower and middle class their jobs, health benefits, paid vacations, etc. What would this country look like if the "rich" corporations collectively said: "Up yours, I'm retiring and closing up shop"? {REALITY} Let the lower class world entrepreneurs innovate, invest, create and see how this country would look. I have read the posts of those few that comprise the "soak the rich" crowd in this forum, and I foresee a smilestorm in that scenario. {FEAR}

This is all about petty jealousy/envy and vengeance. power, greed and fear to achieve those ends.

Fixed this too.

[Teatownclown]

Why should the government, which is bound by far too many self-regulating codes and generally suffers from a lack of creativity be trusted to create worthwhile jobs?  The government does very little more efficiently than the private sector can do it.

The government prints money, facilitates the private sector and stimulates while enhancing stability.

[Red Arrow]

I'm not commenting on the merits one way or the other, someone simply explain how an investor the government can put money into the economy in the form of new jobs or capital expenditures which creates (or saves) other jobs if the government the investor takes more of what they are earning?

Fixed it.

I get it.  The government is earning the money and those nasty investors are trying to steal the government's money.

Well, maybe not.

[Red Arrow]

The government prints money pieces of paper representing the value created by the private sector, facilitates the private sector and stimulates while enhancing stability.

We've already had the discussion about pieces of paper owned by the government vs. the value they represent.

[Teatownclown]

I get it.  The government is earning the money and those nasty investors are trying to steal the government's money.

Well, maybe not.

No, you don't get it. The government is printing money backed by the best valued debt while terrific investors are putting it to work where they see opportunity. It is opportunity that government enhances through various forms. Anger, wild accusations and implied and explicite threats are the work of politicians and not the Fed.

[nathanm]

Answering my question with a question is no answer.  Apparently you can't explain how that works.

Anyone else care to explain how private investors and businesses can create more jobs when more of their discretionary wealth is taken by the government?

I'm not commenting on the merits one way or the other, someone simply explain how an investor can put money into the economy in the form of new jobs or capital expenditures which creates (or saves) other jobs if the government takes more of what they are earning?

It is an answer, it's just one you don't like. Nobody is arguing that businesses and investors can create more jobs. I'm arguing that it makes little to no difference until you get into tax rates nobody serious is even considering. Whether you like it or not, since 1980 there's been essentially no correlation between tax rates and job creation. FRED is your friend.

Top Marginal Rate | Average Yearly Job Creation (in thousands)

91%               | 765
70%               | 2,014
50%               | 1,920
28%               | 1,828
31%               | 147
39.6%             | 2,883
35%               | 9.625

I only included those rates which stuck around for more than three years, but the data is rather clear that there is no correlation between income tax rate and job creation. It was easy enough that I'll go back farther here in a bit.

[guido911]

I'm trying to differentiate between what happens when people decide what to do with money they could invest rather than the government deciding what to do with it.  Perhaps not the right term to use, simply trying to make the point it's up to the individual where they spend or invest it.  Doesn't matter what I call it really, the wealth-envy crowd thinks its horrible someone could possibly be in a position to create jobs with that money instead of being noble and handing it over to the government.

Come on Conan, of course the government should decide how the rich's money is spent. That way it will get into Nate's pocket quicker. 

[Red Arrow]

No, you don't get it. The government is printing money backed by the best valued debt while terrific investors are putting it to work where they see opportunity. It is opportunity that government enhances through various forms.

I thought you were against tax breaks for big corporations and folks with money to invest.

[Red Arrow]

Whether you like it or not, since 1980 there's been essentially no correlation between tax rates and job creation.

Borrowing a concept from the present administration's take on the stimulus and the prevention of the loss of jobs, the job situation might have been even worse with higher tax rates. 

[nathanm]

Come on Conan, of course the government should decide how the rich's money is spent. That way it will get into Nate's pocket quicker.  

My pocket? I think I'm not paying enough.

RA, see my edit.

[Breadburner]

[Red Arrow]

My pocket? I think I'm not paying enough.

RA, see my edit.

Would you add the years those top marginal rates were in effect please?  Other events may have had an influence.

You would appreciate the new line for the tax form I proposed.  Just pay more voluntarily if you think you aren't paying enough. 

[heironymouspasparagus]

Leave it to Bread....is that your special treatment of corn for making meal in your cornbread??



Conan,
You said you would not be too adverse to a rate hike.  Exactly how much - in percent - would you not be adverse to?  

I will put in a number - I wouldn't object to 3%.  How about it?

[nathanm]

Since I've got the numbers handy, let's check it out, starting with Eisenhower:

President | Average Monthly Job Creation (in thousands)
Eisenhower| 36.85
Kennedy   | 105.06
Johnson   | 196.5
Nixon     | 137.03
Ford      | 71.48
Carter    | 215.4
Reagan    | 167.73
Bush 41   | 54
Clinton   | 236.92
Bush 43   | 11.4
Obama     | -108.65

Let's keep in mind that Obama's first term is not yet complete, and last year we added 940,000 jobs and this year we're on track for about 2,000,000, for about a 1 million job deficit by the end of the year..pretty good considering his first year in office we lost over 5.1 million jobs, which is by far the highest in any year since the BLS started keeping records. Reagan's 1982 number of 2.1 million lost jobs is the next highest.

Edited to add: RA, here you go http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

Other events will always have an effect. That's why I went back to the 40s. At some point, you have to think it's all averaged out.

Perhaps you guys can now see a little more of why I have more than a little skepticism for the Republican point of view on economics..