Nick Hanauer - Job Creator Myth

[RedskinRat]

I like this:

Nick Hanauer - YouTube

[firstdown]

I listened to half and the guy has no clue. He thinks business only hire when there is a need because of consumers driving them to hire. If I went by that I would have never hired more then one person in my office. I hire people to go out and drive in consumers not the other way around. He gives the example of owning only 3 cars but for the wealthy buy other things the cars.

Just one small example. I guess he does not count the thousands and thousands of jobs it takes to build and support a rich mans toys.



The rich do not create all the jobs but they sure do create a punch of jobs.

[That Guy]

that's sorta tangential FD. he's saying that having a 15% tax rate on the top 1% isn't incentivizing them to go out and create any more jobs than if they were taxed at 30%. at a certain point you don't need any more boats or houses or whatnot. By taking that extra 15%, that money could be used to pay for worker education or the like, creating more knowledge workers who'd be making more money.

ie - the gi bill after WWII - for every $1 spent, $7 came back due to the massive increase in the number of lawyers, doctors, etc.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by That Guy

that's sorta tangential FD. he's saying that having a 15% tax rate on the top 1% isn't incentivizing them to go out and create any more jobs than if they were taxed at 30%. at a certain point you don't need any more boats or houses or whatnot. By taking that extra 15%, that money could be used to pay for worker education or the like, creating more knowledge workers who'd be making more money.

ie - the gi bill after WWII - for every $1 spent, $7 came back due to the massive increase in the number of lawyers, doctors, etc.

So taking extra income and buying boats and homes does not create jobs anymore? The GI bill made it easier but your saying without that bill people would not have become Dr's and lawyers. Thats just not true. They would have used other means to get an education and have a successful life.

[firstdown]

BTW: The top 1% paid a Income tax rate of 24% and if I'm correct that does not include a 4% or 8% SS tax or State Taxes. Its BS when people say the rich don't pay a fair amount in taxes they pay more then their share in taxes. Now can they afford to pay more is what should be debated.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

BTW: The top 1% paid a Income tax rate of 24% and if I'm correct that does not include a 4% or 8% SS tax or State Taxes. Its BS when people say the rich don't pay a fair amount in taxes they pay more then their share in taxes. Now can they afford to pay more is what should be debated.

False.

What their code is showing they SHOULD pay, and what they did pay is two different things. Stop going by the tax code, it's not right.

Warren Buffet has already been on record as showing he had a lower tax rate than his secretary. The top 1% are hiding their assets and money in off-shore accounts to avoid taxation.

Romney has even stated he is paying 14% tax rate.

Stop with your misinformation about how the 1% is paying a 24% tax rate. Until they close all the tax loopholes, your statement is invalid and most definitely false.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

False.

What their code is showing they SHOULD pay, and what they did pay is two different things. Stop going by the tax code, it's not right.

Warren Buffet has already been on record as showing he had a lower tax rate than his secretary. The top 1% are hiding their assets and money in off-shore accounts to avoid taxation.

Romney has even stated he is paying 14% tax rate.

Stop with your misinformation about how the 1% is paying a 24% tax rate. Until they close all the tax loopholes, your statement is invalid and most definitely false.

I guess you need to eat those words. A 2 min. serch would show that I'm correct. Their tax rate satrt at 33% if I'm correct.

Washington, DC, October 24, 2011--The income earned by the top 1% of Americans has declined for the second year in a row while their average tax rate has increased, according to a new Tax Foundation study. The average federal tax rate for those reporting at least $343,927 in income has increased from 22.5% in 2007 to 24.0% in 2009, while the average income for the top 1% has declined from $1.4 million to $1 million over the same period.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I guess you need to eat those words. A 2 min. serch would show that I'm correct. Their tax rate satrt at 33% if I'm correct.

Washington, DC, October 24, 2011--The income earned by the top 1% of Americans has declined for the second year in a row while their average tax rate has increased, according to a new Tax Foundation study. The average federal tax rate for those reporting at least $343,927 in income has increased from 22.5% in 2007 to 24.0% in 2009, while the average income for the top 1% has declined from $1.4 million to $1 million over the same period.

Well, if those are the numbers than so be it and I stand corrected. However, the data skewed and not really representative of the 1% we speak of. We should be talking about the .025% really or even lesser. We are talking about guys banking millions yearly, not guys with a 350k salary. A salary of 350k puts you into the top 1% bracket.

When you look at it, they are lumping Romney who's pulling in 22 million income and lumping him in the same tax bracket as the guy making 350k. Not even remotely close and it's those other people that are pulling the true numbers down to make it look like they are paying 24%. They aren't. Romney and Buffet are prime examples of those guys NOT paying 24% tax rate, and I assure you those other guys making that type of coin aren't either.

People don't have issues with the man making 350k. They DO have issues with the man making millions (and billions) and not paying a fair tax %. Romney and Buffet (and many others) should be paying a LOT more.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Well, if those are the numbers than so be it and I stand corrected. However, the data skewed and not really representative of the 1% we speak of. We should be talking about the .025% really or even lesser. We are talking about guys banking millions yearly, not guys with a 350k salary. A salary of 350k puts you into the top 1% bracket.

When you look at it, they are lumping Romney who's pulling in 22 million income and lumping him in the same tax bracket as the guy making 350k. Not even remotely close and it's those other people that are pulling the true numbers down to make it look like they are paying 24%. They aren't. Romney and Buffet are prime examples of those guys NOT paying 24% tax rate, and I assure you those other guys making that type of coin aren't either.

People don't have issues with the man making 350k. They DO have issues with the man making millions (and billions) and not paying a fair tax %. Romney and Buffet (and many others) should be paying a LOT more.

So the top 1% pay around 40% of all the federal taxes but you say that they are not paying a fair amount. What's fair? 60% of all federal taxes? The problem I have with your arguement is that you say they are not paying their fair share when the number show they are paying plenty in taxes. It would sound better if the left would say I know the top 1% allready pay a large % of the federal taxes but I feel they can afford to pay more but that deos not sell well with the the left. It has to be made into a class issue to sell the packeage top the non tax paying voters.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

So the top 1% pay around 40% of all the federal taxes but you say that they are not paying a fair amount. What's fair? 60% of all federal taxes? The problem I have with your arguement is that you say they are not paying their fair share when the number show they are paying plenty in taxes. It would sound better if the left would say I know the top 1% allready pay a large % of the federal taxes but I feel they can afford to pay more but that deos not sell well with the the left. It has to be made into a class issue to sell the packeage top the non tax paying voters.

Over the past decade, the middle class people have been paying a higher % of their salary towards taxes, while guys like Romney and Buffet (and many others) have been abusing loopholes to pay a much smaller % than most of us. It's time to close those loop holes, and make them share the same burden we did.

I don't care if they are paying 95% of the taxes. What they aren't paying is the same percentage when it comes comes to middle class.

Again, lets stop using this 1% stat. This isn't about the guys making 350k who qualify as 1%, this is about the rich elite who are banking in millions and millions (even billions) and are evading taxes through loopholes. I want you to understand the difference.

[RedskinRat]

I'm with you on this, NC. Firstdown is relying heavily on numbers from a group backed and financed by Koch, Exxon Mobil, Earhart and other Ma and Pa businesses. <rolls_eyes>

I'm not fond of the NY Times but Krugman accused the Tax Foundation of "deliberate fraud" in connection with a report it issued concerning the American Jobs Act.

Point is that this is hardly an independent group as they claim.

[RedskinRat]

More information along the same lines:

Barbara Ehrenreich, Looting the Lives of the Poor


Individually the poor are not too tempting to thieves, for obvious reasons. Mug a banker and you might score a wallet containing a month’s rent. Mug a janitor and you will be lucky to get away with bus fare to flee the crime scene. But as Business Week helpfully pointed out in 2007, the poor in aggregate provide a juicy target for anyone depraved enough to make a business of stealing from them.

The trick is to rob them in ways that are systematic, impersonal, and almost impossible to trace to individual perpetrators. Employers, for example, can simply program their computers to shave a few dollars off each paycheck, or they can require workers to show up 30 minutes or more before the time clock starts ticking.

Lenders, including major credit companies as well as payday lenders, have taken over the traditional role of the street-corner loan shark, charging the poor insanely high rates of interest. When supplemented with late fees (themselves subject to interest), the resulting effective interest rate can be as high as 600% a year, which is perfectly legal in many states.

It’s not just the private sector that’s preying on the poor. Local governments are discovering that they can partially make up for declining tax revenues through fines, fees, and other costs imposed on indigent defendants, often for crimes no more dastardly than driving with a suspended license. And if that seems like an inefficient way to make money, given the high cost of locking people up, a growing number of jurisdictions have taken to charging defendants for their court costs and even the price of occupying a jail cell.

I think I can see where this is going.

[That Guy]

without the gi bill there wouldn't have been as many doctors or lawyers. despite what you may think, getting a massive loan to go to harvard just didn't happen all that easily unlike today. less high income earners, less boats etc.

if it'd be so easy, tell me how millions of vets on army enlisted pay in 1940 would afford full college rides while supporting a family... you know, cause it shouldn't be a problem, like you said :P

and i wouldn't trust the tax foundation, check who's funding them and how their views magically match those of their donors... hmm.

and by the way, building one boat for one person doesn't creat thousands of long term jobs. having enough 80-100k earners could sustain an actual workforce much more feasibly.

[dmek25]

there isn't anyone on this board included in the top 1%, so why do we spend time defending them? i say let the rich pull their fair share, and even a bit more, if its going to help the cause. i guarantee they aren't going to miss it

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by dmek25

there isn't anyone on this board included in the top 1%, so why do we spend time defending them? i say let the rich pull their fair share, and even a bit more, if its going to help the cause. i guarantee they aren't going to miss it

Well considering that a person making 350k is technically in the top 1% it's not a far cry that somebody here is in the top 1%. However, it's not who we are addressing when we speak of the top 1%. We are speaking of guys that are raking in millions upon millions of dollars a year.(and billions) Guys like Romney would be included here. Bill Gates included. The doctor down the street making 500k....not included. Why they are all lumped in together is stupid, but it's done by our tax purposes so they can hide the true numbers the ultra rich are having to pay.

Do they lump a guy making 200k with the guy making 7k? Nope, so why would you lump a guy making 350k with a dude making 20 million? They do it so they can make the numbers average out to show the public peasants....LOOK WE ARE PAYING A HIGH NUMBER. When in reality, they aren't.

Proof?

Super-rich taxed at Romney&rsquo;s rate triple, says BGOV Barometer - Business - The Boston Globe

A Bloomberg review found that the Republican presidential candidate, whose tax return shows he paid an effective rate of less than 15 percent on his 2010 income, has that in common with an increasing number of the nation’s 400 top earners. Of that group, 131 paid less than 15 percent in 2008, compared with just 38 in 1999.

Since 1996, the average effective tax rate for the top-earning 400 dropped by more than one-third, to 18.1 percent from 27.8 percent. In 1996, only 10 of the ultra-rich group paid effective tax rates of less than 15 percent; 305 paid at least 25 percent