A 1 percenter tells the truth about "job creators"

[The Rabbi]

Lower taxes are better for everyone except the government.

The government extorts our money wastes it, exploits it, it's our money.

If any other entity made you give them money, took it before you even saw your paycheck, you would call them thieves.

I've been waiting for years for someone to tell us how we can run a nation without money.

Seriously, I would love to know the solution.

Reductio ad absurdum fallacy. She wrote "Lower" taxes, not no taxes.

Learn to read. Learn to think.

 

[Erand7899]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg. The same applies to the producer and the consumer. You need both for any economics to work.

To contend that rich people do not create jobs, is an idiotic statement. Poor people rarely hire anyone, for any purpose beyond mowing the lawn.

The OP is correct that the middle class creates most of the jobs and most of the new businesses. And he is partly correct that the 1% do not create many jobs. However, the 1% invest their capital in large enterprises that do create jobs, and those jobs are the high paying jobs with benefits, that American workers desire.

Few start-up businesses have customers waiting for them to produce. The person or persons starting the business puts capital together, obtains the infrastructure, and hires workers on the presumption that the business will attract customers. Only then does the demand side begin to determine how fast the business grows, how many more people will be hired, and how much profit will be made.

Taxes, regulations, and official red tape, can and does affect, not only the start of new businesses, but also the growth of businesses. When anything negatively impacts the start up or growth of business, the business will not be hiring as many people as it would without the negative impact. Multiply this marginal effect across millions of businesses, and you get numbers like we see today.

 

[Yurt]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg. The same applies to the producer and the consumer. You need both for any economics to work.

To contend that rich people do not create jobs, is an idiotic statement. Poor people rarely hire anyone, for any purpose beyond mowing the lawn.

The OP is correct that the middle class creates most of the jobs and most of the new businesses. And he is partly correct that the 1% do not create many jobs. However, the 1% invest their capital in large enterprises that do create jobs, and those jobs are the high paying jobs with benefits, that American workers desire.

Few start-up businesses have customers waiting for them to produce. The person or persons starting the business puts capital together, obtains the infrastructure, and hires workers on the presumption that the business will attract customers. Only then does the demand side begin to determine how fast the business grows, how many more people will be hired, and how much profit will be made.

Taxes, regulations, and official red tape, can and does affect, not only the start of new businesses, but also the growth of businesses. When anything negatively impacts the start up or growth of business, the business will not be hiring as many people as it would without the negative impact. Multiply this marginal effect across millions of businesses, and you get numbers like we see today.

well said

 

[Erand7899]

Most 1% ers make their money from investments not creating jobs. Middle America creates most of the jobs with small businesses.

This thread is bogus

How do you think jobs get created without investing? Do you believe stores and factories just pop up miraculously out of thin air because of "demand?"

I'm talking about small business. They create the vast majority of the jobs. The rich certainly invest m9ney that then gets loaned out but they are not the job creators.

Who do you think that money is loaned to? It is loaned to businesses, home buyers, car buyers, etc.. It all works together in the mix of capital, production, consumption, that is the result of millions of individual economic decisions made by millions of people working in their own self interest. That is capitalism, and there is no better system.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

How do you think jobs get created without investing? Do you believe stores and factories just pop up miraculously out of thin air because of "demand?"

I'm talking about small business. They create the vast majority of the jobs. The rich certainly invest m9ney that then gets loaned out but they are not the job creators.

Who do you think that money is loaned to? It is loaned to businesses, home buyers, car buyers, etc.. It all works together in the mix of capital, production, consumption, that is the result of millions of individual economic decisions made by millions of people working in their own self interest. That is capitalism, and there is no better system.

No shit sherlock. Still doesn't negate my point.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

If government would learn its place, we wouldn't have to worry so much about taxes. Damn. How much money do those nitwits need?

If you pare the government down, you pay less taxes.

Why do liberals have such a problem understanding this simple fact?

 

[Wyatt earp]

It's not the initial hire that's as important as continued employment, expansion and the hiring of more employees. Sorry, but the only FAIL I see is yours. You seem to be more interested in scoring quick points than actually thinking about the logic of the situation.

You've described your post perfectly.

The hiring precedes the sales. Whether the business is successful or not is irrelevant to the decision to hire, which must come first.
Tax rates are one factor among many in the decision to start or expand a business. Obviously there is risk in doing both and if the net result is going to be 80% paid to the gov't then the businessman simply wont start or expand. Regulation is another. If a business is going to expose itself to possible jail time for the principles merely by operating then they probably will think about doing something else. If a regulation makes it arduous and expensive to hire, e.g. Obamacare, then they will probably do something else.
The only people who doubt this are people who have never started a business in their lives more complicated than yard sales on eBay.

Tax rates on the higher brackets and regulation aren't nearly as important as demand. Try again.

I Demand anit-gravity gym shoes. why dont they meet my demand? I also think the demand is high for the fountain of youth were is it? I swear some people think consumer demand is what created the computer, internet or flashy cell phones. It was sold to them by the likes of Steve Jobs.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Lower taxes are better for everyone except the government.

The government extorts our money wastes it, exploits it, it's our money.

If any other entity made you give them money, took it before you even saw your paycheck, you would call them thieves.

I've been waiting for years for someone to tell us how we
can run a nation without money.

Seriously, I would love to know the solution.

No, we can run a smaller government on less money.

We can start by ending the constant state of warfare. We can also get rid of Homeland Security and the CIA. All they do is duplicate the services of the police and the military. End them. They are a waste of money and a threat to liberty.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

You've described your post perfectly.

The hiring precedes the sales. Whether the business is successful or not is irrelevant to the decision to hire, which must come first.
Tax rates are one factor among many in the decision to start or expand a business. Obviously there is risk in doing both and if the net result is going to be 80% paid to the gov't then the businessman simply wont start or expand. Regulation is another. If a business is going to expose itself to possible jail time for the principles merely by operating then they probably will think about doing something else. If a regulation makes it arduous and expensive to hire, e.g. Obamacare, then they will probably do something else.
The only people who doubt this are people who have never started a business in their lives more complicated than yard sales on eBay.

Tax rates on the higher brackets and regulation aren't nearly as important as demand. Try again.

I Demand anit-gravity gym shoes. why dont they meet my demand? I also think the demand is high for the fountain of youth were is it? I swear some people think consumer demand is what created the computer, internet or flashy cell phones. It was sold to them by the likes of Steve Jobs.

What nonsense. There is always a demand for more efficient information handling and communication.

Those demands were met by computer and telecommunications companies.

There is a high demand for anti-aging products, too. The market is scrambling to meet it.

There is a demand for "anti-gravity gymshoes," too.

Thus Air Jordans, etc.

The democrats' never-ending quest to repeal the law of supply and demand is amusing to watch. Just think -- if they repealed the law of gravity, you'd have your gym shoes.

 

[Erand7899]

It's not the initial hire that's as important as continued employment, expansion and the hiring of more employees. Sorry, but the only FAIL I see is yours. You seem to be more interested in scoring quick points than actually thinking about the logic of the situation.

You've described your post perfectly.

The hiring precedes the sales. Whether the business is successful or not is irrelevant to the decision to hire, which must come first.
Tax rates are one factor among many in the decision to start or expand a business. Obviously there is risk in doing both and if the net result is going to be 80% paid to the gov't then the businessman simply wont start or expand. Regulation is another. If a business is going to expose itself to possible jail time for the principles merely by operating then they probably will think about doing something else. If a regulation makes it arduous and expensive to hire, e.g. Obamacare, then they will probably do something else.


The only people who doubt this are people who have never started a business in their lives more complicated than yard sales on eBay.

While the whole post is sophomoric nonsense, the parts in red are some of the most hilariously uninformed bullshit ever published on the internet. Someone tried to credit you with being smart enough to score points, when all you've done is embarrass reason. Let's look at the worst of your nonsense one at a time.

1. Taxes are a usual cost of doing business; US rates are uniform enough to be a non-issue for people developing sound ideas.

2. The health care business is among the most profitable legal extortions on earth. Obamacare and all, it is expected to be in the top five job creators over the next ten years.

3. Everyone who understands that without demand, sales suffer, doubts your point.

4. After blabbermouthing it through 27,000 posts you have demonstrated little sense and earned less credibility on political issues than Larry Fine had on Quantum Mechanics.

5. Basically your posts are a combination trainwreck and clownshow.

Yes, taxes are a usual cost of doing business, just like rent, insurance and electricity. And, whenever one or more of the costs of doing business increases, the profit margin, (if there is a profit margin) shrinks, and the business loses some of its ability to grow, or even maintain itself in business.

In the case of a nationwide tax increase, all businesses suffer somewhat, and all consumers suffer somewhat because of increases in the cost of products due to the taxes being passed on to customers. Total consumption decreases by some amount, and some people lose jobs, also reducing consumption.

To have a healthy growing economy we need people employed at all levels, and that means we need to create the most conducive atmosphere for new businesses to start and for existing businesses to grow. Lowering taxes, reducing regulations, and reducing red tape, creates that necessary atmosphere, and puts people back to work again.

 

[Katzndogz]

Nick Hanauer Doesn't Know His Galileo Let Alone His Economics - Forbes

Mr. Hanauer isn’t quite wholly accurate on each and every detail that he puts forward in his arguments. This becomes important here:

The extraordinary differential between the 15-20% tax rate on capital gains, dividends, and carried interest for capitalists, and the 39% top marginal rate on work for ordinary Americans is just one of those privileges.

For of course the US doesn’t in fact have a full tax rate of 15% on dividends nor 20% on capital gains. What it has is those tax rates charged to the individual: but there’s another layer of tax that applies at the corporate level. By looking just at who writes the check Hanauer is entirely misleading as to the actual rate of taxation on those monies. The integrated tax rate on dividends is, for 2012, a shade over 50%:

In other words, Hanauer is making it up as he goes along.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Tax rates on the higher brackets and regulation aren't nearly as important as demand. Try again.

I Demand anit-gravity gym shoes. why dont they meet my demand? I also think the demand is high for the fountain of youth were is it? I swear some people think consumer demand is what created the computer, internet or flashy cell phones. It was sold to them by the likes of Steve Jobs.

What nonsense. There is always a demand for more efficient information handling and communication.

Those demands were met by computer and telecommunications companies.

There is a high demand for anti-aging products, too. The market is scrambling to meet it.

There is a demand for "anti-gravity gymshoes," too.

Thus Air Jordans, etc.

The democrats' never-ending quest to repeal the law of supply and demand is amusing to watch. Just think -- if they repealed the law of gravity, you'd have your gym shoes.

Bwahahahahahahaha!!! that was your lame come back? anti aging cream and fucking Air Jordans? Lmao..... you do know that crap was SOLD to the public, right? and you believe it works? Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!! thanks pal for the laugh....

 

[Erand7899]

I'm talking about small business. They create the vast majority of the jobs. The rich certainly invest m9ney that then gets loaned out but they are not the job creators.

Who do you think that money is loaned to? It is loaned to businesses, home buyers, car buyers, etc.. It all works together in the mix of capital, production, consumption, that is the result of millions of individual economic decisions made by millions of people working in their own self interest. That is capitalism, and there is no better system.

No shit sherlock. Still doesn't negate my point.

Yes, Gramps, it does, but you are too far gone on envy of the rich to understand that capital is a necessary part of a successful economy, and the rich have more capital than anyone else. They do not sit on their money, they invest it, and that investment helps the economy grow.

Part of our problem today is that the rich are not investing so much in the American economy, they are investing around the world, in places where they can get a better return on their money.

 

[blackhawk]

If you move through the links you find this 1% is co founder of the True Patriot network a political action think tank who's other founder was Eric Liu who was a speech writer for Bill Clinton and later his deputy domestic policy adviser. So all you really have here is a liberal 1% giving the liberal talking point nothing really groundbreaking here.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Who do you think that money is loaned to? It is loaned to businesses, home buyers, car buyers, etc.. It all works together in the mix of capital, production, consumption, that is the result of millions of individual economic decisions made by millions of people working in their own self interest. That is capitalism, and there is no better system.

No shit sherlock. Still doesn't negate my point.

Yes, Gramps, it does, but you are too far gone on envy of the rich to understand that capital is a necessary part of a successful economy, and the rich have more capital than anyone else. They do not sit on their money, they invest it, and that investment helps the economy grow.

Part of our problem today is that the rich are not investing so much in the American economy, they are investing around the world, in places where they can get a better return on their money.

I envy the rich? lmfao

You morons are so busy arguing about which came first the chicken or the egg that you've completely blinded by your own silly arguments.

I don't give a fuck who makes what or how much. I just don't put them on some god damn pedestal and pretend that they are more important than anyone else.

Envious of the rich lol that's too fuckin funny

 

[Crackerjaxon]

I Demand anit-gravity gym shoes. why dont they meet my demand? I also think the demand is high for the fountain of youth were is it? I swear some people think consumer demand is what created the computer, internet or flashy cell phones. It was sold to them by the likes of Steve Jobs.

What nonsense. There is always a demand for more efficient information handling and communication.

Those demands were met by computer and telecommunications companies.

There is a high demand for anti-aging products, too. The market is scrambling to meet it.

There is a demand for "anti-gravity gymshoes," too.

Thus Air Jordans, etc.

The democrats' never-ending quest to repeal the law of supply and demand is amusing to watch. Just think -- if they repealed the law of gravity, you'd have your gym shoes.

Bwahahahahahahaha!!! that was your lame come back? anti aging cream and fucking Air Jordans? Lmao..... you do know that crap was SOLD to the public, right? and you believe it works? Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!! thanks pal for the laugh....

Dear Idiot,

Your understamding of marketing is non-existent. You fail to understand the difference between demand and competition. You fail to grasp the difference between supply and demand. You are too dim to grasp the fact that advertising is driven more by competition in a market than by pure demand. Thus, your moronic assertions.

Nothing can be sold to ANYONE unless there is a demand for it.

Why does that simple fact elude you?

I understand that you might be weak-minded enough to be persuaded to buy things you don't need, or even want. That's not a function of the market, though. It's a result of your blatant stupidity. I really don't mind ignorance, it's a curable condition. Aggressive stupidity is slightly irritating, though. Give yourself an F for the day.

 

[Wyatt earp]

There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home. ~Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC), in a talk given to a 1977.

There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any
significant market share.~ Steve Ballmer, USA Today, April 30, 2007.

With over fifteen types of foreign cars already on sale
here, the Japanese auto industry isn't likely to carve out a big share of the market for itself. Businessweek, August 2, 1968.

think there is a world market for maybe five computers. ~Thomas J. Watson, chairman of IBM, on seeing the first mainframe computer in 1943. (I know this is a bullshit quote but it does prove a point about the power of Sales and how guliblle the american consumer is)

 

[Erand7899]

No shit sherlock. Still doesn't negate my point.

Yes, Gramps, it does, but you are too far gone on envy of the rich to understand that capital is a necessary part of a successful economy, and the rich have more capital than anyone else. They do not sit on their money, they invest it, and that investment helps the economy grow.

Part of our problem today is that the rich are not investing so much in the American economy, they are investing around the world, in places where they can get a better return on their money.

I envy the rich? lmfao

You morons are so busy arguing about which came first the chicken or the egg that you've completely blinded by your own silly arguments.

I don't give a fuck who makes what or how much. I just don't put them on some god damn pedestal and pretend that they are more important than anyone else.

Envious of the rich lol that's too fuckin funny

Nor do I put them on any pedestal, or pretend they are more important than anyone else. I welcome them to the mix that our economy depends on for success. I also welcome the burger flipper at McDonald's, and anyone else who contributes to the mix. All are necessary to a successful economy, and selecting any of them out as bad for the economy is a dumb idea.

Almost as dumb as those who think their is some magic in the word "demand". Without the corresponding word "supply", it is meaningless.

 

[Wyatt earp]

What nonsense. There is always a demand for more efficient information handling and communication.

Those demands were met by computer and telecommunications companies.

There is a high demand for anti-aging products, too. The market is scrambling to meet it.

There is a demand for "anti-gravity gymshoes," too.

Thus Air Jordans, etc.

The democrats' never-ending quest to repeal the law of supply and demand is amusing to watch. Just think -- if they repealed the law of gravity, you'd have your gym shoes.

Bwahahahahahahaha!!! that was your lame come back? anti aging cream and fucking Air Jordans? Lmao..... you do know that crap was SOLD to the public, right? and you believe it works? Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!! thanks pal for the laugh....

Dear Idiot,

Your understamding of marketing is non-existent. You fail to understand the difference between demand and competition. You fail to grasp the difference between supply and demand. You are too dim to grasp the fact that advertising is driven more by competition in a market than by pure demand. Thus, your moronic assertions.

Nothing can be sold to ANYONE unless there is a demand for it.

Why does that simple fact elude you?

I understand that you might be weak-minded enough to be persuaded to buy things you don't need, or even want. That's not a function of the market, though. It's a result of your blatant stupidity. I really don't mind ignorance, it's a curable condition. Aggressive stupidity is slightly irritating, though. Give yourself an F for the day.

who me? I live in the real world. Had two wifes and so many girlfriends that I couldnt name them all if I tried. I couldnt tell you the times I had to fork over cash or my credit card so they could buy the next "new thing". your the one thats ignorant not me.They sure didnt need it. but wanted it.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Yes, Gramps, it does, but you are too far gone on envy of the rich to understand that capital is a necessary part of a successful economy, and the rich have more capital than anyone else. They do not sit on their money, they invest it, and that investment helps the economy grow.

Part of our problem today is that the rich are not investing so much in the American economy, they are investing around the world, in places where they can get a better return on their money.

I envy the rich? lmfao

You morons are so busy arguing about which came first the chicken or the egg that you've completely blinded by your own silly arguments.

I don't give a fuck who makes what or how much. I just don't put them on some god damn pedestal and pretend that they are more important than anyone else.

Envious of the rich lol that's too fuckin funny

Nor do I put them on any pedestal, or pretend they are more important than anyone else. I welcome them to the mix that our economy depends on for success. I also welcome the burger flipper at McDonald's, and anyone else who contributes to the mix. All are necessary to a successful economy, and selecting any of them out as bad for the economy is a dumb idea.

Almost as dumb as those who think their is some magic in the word "demand". Without the corresponding word "supply", it is meaningless.

3 or 4 times now you guys have tried to peg me. You're beginning to make yourselves look foolish. I've said nothing neither pro nor con about any segment of society. Nor have I commented on the silly chicken or egg argument about demand vs supply.

I've been in business for 23 years now servicing anyone with the money to hire me. Ultimately this argument serves no purpose