Rich people dont create jobs.

[nutmeg]

Quote from tomdavis:

Unless net new wealth is created, one person's gain is another's loss.

For example, smog tests

I was thinking along the same lines, you said it very well. I'd like to add re the smog test.

The smog test requires expensive equipment, which then displaces the marginal auto inspector who cannot afford the additional equipment.

 

[PHOENIX TRADING]

Quote from Ricter:

Necessity created the first job, continues to create them, and will create them so long as Man wishes to live.

Now, which came first, the laborer or the tool?

The demand for labor was always there (and infinite), the ability to get it done in a cost effective manner requires the tool.

Why liberals can't see that must be a mental disease.

Perhaps rereading robinson crusoe or

<object width="640" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/78a84qbT5-w?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/78a84qbT5-w?
version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="360" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

 

[PHOENIX TRADING]

Quote from G-Unit:



History shows that low taxes does not equal jobs.

and high taxes do?

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from tomdavis:

If governments could produce a "net positive jobs impact" through legislation, we would always be at full employment. Unless net new wealth is created, one person's gain is another's loss.

For example, smog tests in California create jobs in one industry and take away from another. If I have to pay $50 for a smog test, that's fifty dollars less I have to spend elsewhere, let's say the local coffee shop. If everyone in my neighborhood has to pay $50 for a smog inspection and spends spends fifty dollars less at the local coffee shop, the coffee shop suffers and lays off employees.

Smog inspections may be benficial if they produce better air quality, but smog inspections will not produce net new jobs, just a transfer from one sector to another or a reduction in wealth as people tap their savings (transfer of wealth) to pay the new cost.

Caifornia has more regulations than any other state in the country, yet has the third highest unemployment in the nation. Greece has more government employees per capita than any other country in Europe, yet their overall unemployment rate is 20%.

If we want smog checks to improve air quality, that's fine. But let's be honest about it. It doesn't create any net new jobs. Smog check fees are actually a tax that transfers money from indivuals to the goverment and their agents (smog inspection stations). The individuals paying the tax can't spend that money at the coffee shop.

You're describing what's known in economics as the "Broken Window Fallacy."

http://freedomkeys.com/window.htm

The glazier�s gain of business, in short, is merely the tailor�s loss of business. No new �employment� has been added.

Both factual and well stated.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from piezoe:

snip..


The idiotic mantra that the wealthy are responsible for job creation is not only tiresome, but it is flat out out wrong. In fact, it would appear that the wealthy are rather immaterial to the issue of job creation. [/B]

Of course.

But if that's not true how can they continue to justify their historically low tax rates?

It's amazing how the Republican propaganda machine has so easily brainwashed the Fox News watchers that what's good for the 1% is also somehow good for the struggling middle-class Fox News watchers. It's like they're saying "Look. It's good for me not to be taxed so I can be richer and be a good example of how rich you can be but you actually won't ever be and meanwhile you're subsidizing my extreme wealth. That's a good American ! Good boy ! Here have a bone ! "

And the apologists for the super-wealthy think the bone is just great as they yell about the deficit and how we need to cut granny's benefits to balance the budget.

Jobs are created when people want wealth. Taxing the wealthy won't stop people from wanting to be wealthy. More important is the availability of capital for investing in new businesses.

 

[PHOENIX TRADING]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Of course.

But if that's not true how can they continue to justify their historically low tax rates?

It's amazing how the Republican propaganda machine has so easily brainwashed the Fox News watchers that what's good for the 1% is also somehow good for the struggling middle-class Fox News watchers. It's like they're saying "Look. It's good for me not to be taxed so I can be richer and be a good example of how rich you can be but you actually won't ever be and meanwhile you're subsidizing my extreme wealth. That's a good American ! Good boy ! Here have a bone ! "

WTF? Were you dropped on your head as a baby?

That Bill gates has billions of more dollars than me does not reduce my purchasing power.
However helicopter ben and tax cheat geitner printing untold trillions of dollars very likely does reduce my purchasing power.

So please forgive me if I choose not to be taxed by both inflation and higher marginal rates not to mention harm by decreased business activity.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from tomdavis:

If governments could produce a "net positive jobs impact" through legislation, we would always be at full employment. Unless net new wealth is created, one person's gain is another's loss.. [/i]

Could there be a totalitarian government that forces everyone to work?

 

[Brass]

Quote from futurecurrents:

...But if that's not true how can they continue to justify their historically low tax rates?

It's nothing more than an excuse. They either want to be (or more likely get) rich by living in a country with arguably unlimited opportunity while not being willing to ante up to play in such a country. Talk about a sense of entitlement, eh? Rather ironic.

Since tax rates are lower than they have been in decades, it follows that most of today's billionaires and other rich guys in America somehow managed to create and accumulate their weath under higher tax rates. Meanwhile, today's soon-to-have "rugged individualists" are a bunch of spoiled crybabies by comparison, who are implicitly confessing that they can't play by those same standards. A bunch of special-needs wannabe "players."

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from tomdavis:

If governments could produce a "net positive jobs impact" through legislation, we would always be at full employment. Unless net new wealth is created, one person's gain is another's loss.

For example, smog tests in California create jobs in one industry and take away from another. If I have to pay $50 for a smog test, that's fifty dollars less I have to spend elsewhere, let's say the local coffee shop. If everyone in my neighborhood has to pay $50 for a smog inspection and spends spends fifty dollars less at the local coffee shop, the coffee shop suffers and lays off employees.

Smog inspections may be benficial if they produce better air quality, but smog inspections will not produce net new jobs, just a transfer from one sector to another or a reduction in wealth as people tap their savings (transfer of wealth) to pay the new cost.

[/i]

if the overall gain in fuel mileage due to drivers keeping their car in tune because of the smog test is greater than the $50 cost you have a regulation that has just created a net gain. we wont even mention the cost of dirty air.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Brass:

It's nothing more than an excuse. They either want to be (or more likely get) rich by living in a country with arguably unlimited opportunity while not being willing to ante up to play in such a country. Talk about a sense of entitlement, eh? Rather ironic.

Since tax rates are lower than they have been in decades, it follows that most of today's billionaires and other rich guys in America somehow managed to create and accumulate their weath under higher tax rates. Meanwhile, today's soon-to-have "rugged individualists" are a bunch of spoiled crybabies by comparison, who are implicitly confessing that they can't play by those same standards. A bunch of special-needs wannabe "players."

Bull Shit