Making the Wealthy Wealthier Doesn't Create Jobs

[bigrebnc1775]

No it didn't.

Yes it did I should know I was part of the working poor that got richer when trickle down economics was working over time.

 

[Againsheila]

The class warfare beat is a lonely one, eh, nobraininyourhead?

I didn't see anything about class warfare in that post, but talking about brain dead, denying the facts makes you look that way. People don't invest money without demand, no matter how much you give them. The fact that average American's wages have been stuck with no growth for years has led to diminished demand for products and services. This is why our economy sucks, not because we taxed the wealthy too much. The fact is we gave the wealthy massive tax cuts and average Americans got shit in return. Those are the facts. Denying them only leads to a confirmation of your complete inability to reason.

You don't "see" anything about class warfare?

Really?

I didn't either....

 

[garyganu]

Let's try to keep our eye on the ball here. Making the wealthy wealthier doesn't create jobs.
It may be "fair" to let them keep more of their money. Or it may be fair to have them pay for the priviledge of building wealth in the U.S.A.

It may be smart to fund a thriving consumer class to maintain a healthy demand for goods and services or it may be smart to stuff your matresses with $100 bills. Whatever.

But providing tax breaks and loopholes for the wealthiest does nothing to create jobs.

The government does not create wealth, it does the opposite All wealth is created in the private sector. Less money in the government sector means more money in the private sector. All money in the private sector is either spent or invested. All money in the private sector creates economic activity. Most money in the public sector stifles economic activity.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Given you suck at the public teat what the hell do you know about how and why businesses expand? Do you have friends who manufacture commodes?

Ok genius. Since you act like you know so much. Explain to us why and how a business would expand if it sees no increase in demand.

Because they anticipate future demand.
How much demand was there for a Walkman before the first one was built?

Oh! So, you think businesses only expand if the anticipate future demand.

So ... kind of like EXACTLY what we were saying.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Let's try to keep our eye on the ball here. Making the wealthy wealthier doesn't create jobs.
It may be "fair" to let them keep more of their money. Or it may be fair to have them pay for the priviledge of building wealth in the U.S.A.

It may be smart to fund a thriving consumer class to maintain a healthy demand for goods and services or it may be smart to stuff your matresses with $100 bills. Whatever.

But providing tax breaks and loopholes for the wealthiest does nothing to create jobs.

The government does not create wealth, it does the opposite. Less money in the government sector means more money in the private sector. All wealth is created in the private sector. All money in the private sector is either spent or invested. All money in the private sector creates economic activity. Most money in the public sector stifles economic activity.

Mathematically and logically incorrect.

gdp = c+i+g+(x-m)

 

[Nosmo King]

Henry Ford understood that by paying his workers more, he could expand the marketplace for his products. If no one can afford a new Model T, Mr. Ford would not have been able to expand his business.

If a company does nothing more with their profits than merely keep them (as so many companies do today), there is less capital exchanging hands. The movement of money around the marketplace is what creates growth, and thus jobs. If profits are stashed under the mattress as it were, the flow of capital shrinks as does the economy. Consumer spending is what drives our economy. Consumer demand creates the need among companies to expand operations.

Coddling the rich and consolidating wealth among the very few shrinks the consumer's ability to buy the very goods and services offered. Put more disposable income into as many hands as possible and watch our economy soar. Put more money into fewer and fewer hands and guess what happens?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Let's try to keep our eye on the ball here. Making the wealthy wealthier doesn't create jobs.
It may be "fair" to let them keep more of their money. Or it may be fair to have them pay for the priviledge of building wealth in the U.S.A.

It may be smart to fund a thriving consumer class to maintain a healthy demand for goods and services or it may be smart to stuff your matresses with $100 bills. Whatever.

But providing tax breaks and loopholes for the wealthiest does nothing to create jobs.

The government does not create wealth, it does the opposite All wealth is created in the private sector. Less money in the government sector means more money in the private sector. All money in the private sector is either spent or invested. All money in the private sector creates economic activity. Most money in the public sector stifles economic activity.

Another swing and a miss. Number one - this has nothing to do with the premise of the thread or my statement. Number two - your premise assumes that the public sector collects taxes and then burns the money they collect. Absurd.

 

[garyganu]

Let's try to keep our eye on the ball here. Making the wealthy wealthier doesn't create jobs.
It may be "fair" to let them keep more of their money. Or it may be fair to have them pay for the priviledge of building wealth in the U.S.A.

It may be smart to fund a thriving consumer class to maintain a healthy demand for goods and services or it may be smart to stuff your matresses with $100 bills. Whatever.

But providing tax breaks and loopholes for the wealthiest does nothing to create jobs.

The government does not create wealth, it does the opposite. Less money in the government sector means more money in the private sector. All wealth is created in the private sector. All money in the private sector is either spent or invested. All money in the private sector creates economic activity. Most money in the public sector stifles economic activity.

Mathematically and logically incorrect.

gdp = c+i+g+(x-m)

Then give me an example of money in the private sector that does not create economic activity?

 

[Leweman]

Let's try to keep our eye on the ball here. Making the wealthy wealthier doesn't create jobs.
It may be "fair" to let them keep more of their money. Or it may be fair to have them pay for the priviledge of building wealth in the U.S.A.

It may be smart to fund a thriving consumer class to maintain a healthy demand for goods and services or it may be smart to stuff your matresses with $100 bills. Whatever.

But providing tax breaks and loopholes for the wealthiest does nothing to create jobs.

The government does not create wealth, it does the opposite. Less money in the government sector means more money in the private sector. All wealth is created in the private sector. All money in the private sector is either spent or invested. All money in the private sector creates economic activity. Most money in the public sector stifles economic activity.

Mathematically and logically incorrect.

gdp = c+i+g+(x-m)

what profit has government ever turned from one of its jobs or organizations? Its not its purpose. It's to provide basic services for the good of this country. Unfortunately that has ballooned out of control and it is not held accountable for the quality of the services it provides.

 

[nodoginnafight]

No it didn't.

Yes it did I should know I was part of the working poor that got richer when trickle down economics was working over time.

No it didn't. Making wealthy people wealthier didn't have anything to do with the improvement of your personal economic situation.

 

[DontBeStupid]

The government does not create wealth, it does the opposite. Less money in the government sector means more money in the private sector. All wealth is created in the private sector. All money in the private sector is either spent or invested. All money in the private sector creates economic activity. Most money in the public sector stifles economic activity.

Mathematically and logically incorrect.

gdp = c+i+g+(x-m)

Then give me an example of money in the private sector that does not create economic activity?

That wasn't my point. My point was that public sector money does stimulate and increase economic activity.

However, if you want an example of private sector money not creating economic activity, I'll point to the current $1.9T in cash that businesses are sitting on. In it's current form, that money is doing nothing.

 

[Dr.House]

Let's try to keep our eye on the ball here. Making the wealthy wealthier doesn't create jobs.
It may be "fair" to let them keep more of their money. Or it may be fair to have them pay for the priviledge of building wealth in the U.S.A.

It may be smart to fund a thriving consumer class to maintain a healthy demand for goods and services or it may be smart to stuff your matresses with $100 bills. Whatever.

But providing tax breaks and loopholes for the wealthiest does nothing to create jobs.

See post #56

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Did trickle up work when Bush gave cut the payroll taxes?

 

[garyganu]

Henry Ford understood that by paying his workers more, he could expand the marketplace for his products. If no one can afford a new Model T, Mr. Ford would not have been able to expand his business.

If a company does nothing more with their profits than merely keep them (as so many companies do today), there is less capital exchanging hands. The movement of money around the marketplace is what creates growth, and thus jobs. If profits are stashed under the mattress as it were, the flow of capital shrinks as does the economy. Consumer spending is what drives our economy. Consumer demand creates the need among companies to expand operations.

Coddling the rich and consolidating wealth among the very few shrinks the consumer's ability to buy the very goods and services offered. Put more disposable income into as many hands as possible and watch our economy soar. Put more money into fewer and fewer hands and guess what happens?

Wrong. No one stashes their money under the mattress. Everyone invests their extra money. Whether you put it in the bank, in a money market fund, in the stock market or invest in real estate, that money is putting people to work or it is being lent to people who will buy houses, cars and build businesses.

 

[Nosmo King]

Henry Ford understood that by paying his workers more, he could expand the marketplace for his products. If no one can afford a new Model T, Mr. Ford would not have been able to expand his business.

If a company does nothing more with their profits than merely keep them (as so many companies do today), there is less capital exchanging hands. The movement of money around the marketplace is what creates growth, and thus jobs. If profits are stashed under the mattress as it were, the flow of capital shrinks as does the economy. Consumer spending is what drives our economy. Consumer demand creates the need among companies to expand operations.

Coddling the rich and consolidating wealth among the very few shrinks the consumer's ability to buy the very goods and services offered. Put more disposable income into as many hands as possible and watch our economy soar. Put more money into fewer and fewer hands and guess what happens?

Wrong. No one stashes their money under the mattress. Everyone invests their extra money. Whether you put it in the bank, in a money market fund, in the stock market or invest in real estate, that money is putting people to work or it is being lent to people who will buy houses, cars and build businesses.

Corporate Profits At All-Time High As Recovery Stumbles

NEW YORK -- Despite high unemployment and a largely languishing real estate market, U.S. businesses are more profitable than ever, according to federal figures released on Friday.

U.S. corporate profits hit an all-time high at the end of 2010, with financial firms showing some of the biggest gains, data from the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis show. Corporations reported an annualized $1.68 trillion in profit in the fourth quarter. The previous record, without being adjusted for inflation, was $1.65 trillion in the third quarter of 2006.

Many of the nation's preeminent companies have posted massive increases in profits this year. General Electric posted worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, while profits at JPMorgan Chase were up 47 percent to $4.8 billion.

Corporate profits steadily increased last year as companies continued holding onto record amounts of cash and other liquid assets while cutting costs, laying off workers and wringing more productivity -- defined as the amount of output that comes from an hour of work -- from remaining staff, even as the recession eased.

 

[nodoginnafight]

How about creating more demand because prices come down because the company creating the product is more profitable because it keeps more of the money it earned. (is that the basis of this thread by the way?, its getting kind of muddled)

Yes, it is getting muddled but I think what you're saying is worth reflecting on. if a lower tax spurs a lower price and If that lower price increases demand and if that increased demand prompts a bigger workforce to fill that greater demand ... then yes, I think that's very possible. It's a lot of ifs and a lot of potential choke points ... but yeah I think it's possible.

The above post suggests that it's a good theory - but it doesn't often work out that way in reality.

 

[Leweman]

Mathematically and logically incorrect.

gdp = c+i+g+(x-m)

Then give me an example of money in the private sector that does not create economic activity?

That wasn't my point. My point was that public sector money does stimulate and increase economic activity.

However, if you want an example of private sector money not creating economic activity, I'll point to the current $1.9T in cash that businesses are sitting on. In it's current form, that money is doing nothing.

Don't forget Solyndra... that didn't create any activity either. Why should businesses risk losing their money because you say so, if they don't feel the current economic situation is conducive to them spending that money?

 

[Leweman]

How about creating more demand because prices come down because the company creating the product is more profitable because it keeps more of the money it earned. (is that the basis of this thread by the way?, its getting kind of muddled)

Yes, it is getting muddled but I think what you're saying is worth reflecting on. if a lower tax spurs a lower price and If that lower price increases demand and if that increased demand prompts a bigger workforce to fill that greater demand ... then yes, I think that's very possible. It's a lot of ifs and a lot of potential choke points ... but yeah I think it's possible.

The above post suggests that it's a good theory - but it doesn't often work out that way in reality.

Every scenario creates a lot of ifs. What if a bunch of "lower class" people get a bunch a money and choose to save it in the short term to send to their kids to college later on?

 

[DontBeStupid]

Then give me an example of money in the private sector that does not create economic activity?

That wasn't my point. My point was that public sector money does stimulate and increase economic activity.

However, if you want an example of private sector money not creating economic activity, I'll point to the current $1.9T in cash that businesses are sitting on. In it's current form, that money is doing nothing.

Don't forget Solyndra... that didn't create any activity either. Why should businesses risk losing their money because you say so, if they don't feel the current economic situation is conducive to them spending that money?

Because it's better for our country, economy and citizens if they risk the money and put it to use. This is why higher tax rates on companies leads to more growth. The companies are forced to either put it to use or pay it to the government, who then spreads it to people who will use it.

 

[garyganu]

Mathematically and logically incorrect.

gdp = c+i+g+(x-m)

Then give me an example of money in the private sector that does not create economic activity?

That wasn't my point. My point was that public sector money does stimulate and increase economic activity.

However, if you want an example of private sector money not creating economic activity, I'll point to the current $1.9T in cash that businesses are sitting on. In it's current form, that money is doing nothing.

Wrong again. Money never "sits" anywhere. If the money is in the bank it is being lent out to people who build businesses, buy homes and cars, etc. Money always goes to where it does the most good in a free market.

Businessmen will always try to put their money where they will get the biggest return and they will try avoid risk. If they don't want to invest it in their own businesses, that is because the projected return is not worth the projected risk. They may risk bankruptcy and having to lay off all of their employees if they expand their current operation. Ford saved it's business by downsizing, not by expanding.