Posted by Tina
How would tax cuts help Americans? The video below shows how jobs and opportunity will grow if government policies on taxes are pro-business and pro-worker:
President Obama chose a different path. He chose to increase the size of government following the recovery from the recession in 2009. His tax policy included a decrease in rates for employee on SS contributions, subsidies for green energy companies, ineffective tax breaks for business that require expenditures or taking out a loan and a temporary extension of tax rates set to expire.
The President wants to spend and redistribute wealth, as he told the American people time and again so the recent agreement on the so-called fiscal cliff included an increase on investment tax rates and those making over $400-$450 thousand but not one dime in spending cuts or restraints. In fact the president has recently declared to John Boehner that Washington doesn’t have a “spending problem”.
If the video above intrigued you the next installment just migh make your blood boil.
We can’t get Americans working again without creating certainty and enthusiasm in business owners. Americans can’t consume and drive the economy if they aren’t working and getting ahead. We need to change direction in Washington…NOW!
Mitt Romney already had those jobs sent to China. These billionaires that want to pay less taxes have already outsourced our jobs to countries that don’t treat their workers very well. The whole idea that makes America great is that a poor person can work hard and become successful. Well all those social government programs to help the poor have already been cut to make like easier for the rich. The socialist government programs that you used to become successful no longer exists for me and my kids because you were conned into believing that the prosperity would trickle down. What really have you done for us? The Baby Boomers have been the most destructive and easily manipulated generation yet.
Romney sent those jobs to China? Guess you missed what Obama has sent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvl5Gan69Wo
Sorry Rex, but your grandparents didn’t become successful through government programs. They got their through hard work.
It used to be that people could work hard and succeed in this country, and to a great extent that still exists. But those who work hard now for success find their path barred by excessive government, dipping into their pockets to give to those who refuse to work, creating phony laws that stop productivity in favor of political correctness and environmental extremism.
Obama and the democrat party are destroying any hope of poor or middle income people rising to success, and you are helping them against your own best interests.
Rex you are one confused guy.
I agree that the Baby Boomer generation has been self-serving. They embraced the idea that self esteem was the key to happiness and fulfillment. The concept, introduced by pop psychologists and self-awareness guru’s, sent the generation down a path that put an emphasis on what I can get rather than what I can contribute. It wasn’t enough to work and provide you had to become a star and if you became a star you had to find a cause to promote. In business being the next Bill Gates or Warren Buffet was the model. Today we have made the self and self esteem so important at home and at school that kids today have a strong sense that they should be rewarded without going to the trouble to achieve. This comes from having low expectations and standards and giving reward to everyone regardless their effort, achievement, or excellence.
DEMAND is the biggest reason jobs have gone overseas!
There are many causes for businesses taking their business overseas. One is that if your product/servicet is in demand in another nation it makes sense to produce the product/service in that nation. Another is that unions pushed wages and benefit demands too high…they got greedy and they used extortion and mob tactics to get what they wanted which also cost the business too much money in lost production…it wasn’t worth it to contract with people of that kind of baby boomer selfishness. Pension and healthcare contracts with the union that were unsustainable sank GM. And the last is that the tax burden is lower. However I take exception to this position on one level. Why should a business pay taxes to America for profit on products made and sold in another country where tax is paid on profits from those products?
Job losses occurred for other reasons. Technology made it possible to do certain jobs with machines or computers. (The upside is that technology also created a lot of jobs but for those trained in old methods retraining was required) Not every job that has gone overseas has taken a job from an American either…many jobs in America have been lost to immigrants that are either better trained and educated or that are willing to work for less.
Labor and skills are commodities that have value. the individual makes a mistake when he is unwilling to compete. Just as business must compete by lowering prices workers at times have to be willing to take less if that job means enough to them. Otherwise they must look for an opportunity that would pay them more and retrain for that.
America must find a way to compete in the world market if our citizens are going to find good jobs here. And our school system had better get back to educating and training our kids to compete as well. We had better realize that we are not automatically deserving of a better lifestyle just because we’re “special”. Achievement through training and work will improve our lives and situation especially if we also save and invest.
There are instances of poor treatment with a few American companies but for the most part that is not the case. The instances that pepper the news from time to time have been exploited for political reasons. In most cases American companies have brought opportunity to the people in countries where they would not have otherwise had it and those people are grateful.The mistreatment is more likely a function of the poor conditions and morality of the country. The people hired to oversea have different ideas than we do about work and compensation. We should expect business owners to work to improve these conditions but obviously on a day to day basis the management and conditions are in the hands of locals with very different ideas than we have in America.
In fact, American businesses have provided Americans with incredible opportunity over many decades and an improved lifestyle that has been a model for the world. FREEDOM creates the space for our citizens to dream, create, innovate, invent and then go on to produce which necessitates the need for workers.
Freedom is being usurped by the notion of the collective. Government has gone beyond it’s limits to deciding how much of the profit companies make will be spent on targeted citizens, companies, special interest groups and it has colluded with some businesses to ensure it’s growth. In the recent passage of Obamacare big healthcare got perks and exclusions for their cooperation with the democrats in getting it passed.
What government programs have been cut?
“The socialist government programs that you used to become successful”
What programs?
“…because you were conned into believing that the prosperity would trickle down.
Prosperity will trickle down in a vibrant economy but it requires participation on the part of the individual. You can’t just sit on your butt and expect money to flow into your bank account. Seriously, what are you talking about?
Rex I would love to ease your mind a bit and assist you to find greater satisfaction but I can’t get what is going on with you.
Government is too expensive and it is the middle class that is paying for this big bloated government taxes they pay or through higher prices for products and services because of taxes imposed on the wealthy
I would bet that Barack Obama is more responsible for creating Chinese jobs than Mitt Romney. All those taxpayer dollars that were suppose to create green jobs have created most of them in China
Tina, you’re still peddling the myth that lowering tax rates on the rich increases revenues, despite the many non-partisan, bipartisan, conservative and liberal agencies and individuals who have said it does no such thing. (When the Tax Policy Center and the Tax Foundation can agree on something, it’s most likely true). You’ve also accused many former advisers to Republican presidents as being biased in favor of Obama for attempting to dispel this myth (even though many of them did so before Obama was all that well known).
I asked you in a previous thread what you thought the flaws were in the CRS study that found lowering tax rates on the rich only leads to further income inequality, not higher revenues. You never explained what the flaws were in the study, leading me to believe that you only dismissed this study (along with all the others) because you did not like the conclusions.
Tina: “Prosperity will trickle down”
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: if this were true, the growing income inequality we have seen over the past 40 years would be *literally impossible.* By your theory, a rise in corporate profits and lowered taxes on the rich should have caused all boats to rise. As you know, this has not happened. As the rich have gotten richer, the poor have gotten poorer–that’s a fact. Wages have gone down even as worker productivity has gone up. Purchasing power has gone down as corporate power has increased. None of this has created a more vibrant middle class or helped the average American. It has done the opposite. Therefore, trickle-down is bullshit. Period.
The rest of your comment is naive corporate cheerleading that even you should recognize as Pollyanna-ish. I almost couldn’t finish it, it was so over-the-top in its praise of corporations and excuse-making for outsourcing. Your “what’s the problem?” attitude toward sending jobs to foreigners who will work for almost no money shows that not only do you think businesses should have no loyalty to this country, you also think they shouldn’t give a shit about people in any other country, either. All that matters is the almighty dollar, and if government regulation in any way hinders that pursuit in order to actually help people who need it, that to you is the greatest form of tyranny. And you wonder why people call Republicans heartless?
Tina, you can make a million excuses why companies like Bain Capital move our jobs to countries that engage in slave labor. The fact that you complain about us not having any jobs is hilariously not our fault. At one point the republican party catered to Americans and did what ever it took to make us successful. Not because they cared about us but because they wanted votes. Never in history have voters (old people) been out to vote against their own interests than today.
http://www.socialwelfarehistory.com/eras/american-social-policy-in-the-60s-and-70s/
Sorry Steve but it is not excessive government that is bending us over. The government serves the corporations and gives them bailout after bailout with our money. Most people do not refuse to work. Given the chance, everybody would like to be a productive member of society but our system has deprived them of education and guidance and set us up so that we need people to starve and live in poverty so that others will work harder and accept the pittance that we are given for it. Some people will sign up for war, some of them will die from poverty. Very few people will live solely off of handouts. All of our problems could be solved if there was not billionaire slave owning families that exploit the hard work of the masses in order to gain more power for themselves. Turn off Faux News. We are just people, we have the answer and it is in our hearts. Stop listening to hateful crap and start listening to your inner voice. There is plenty for all of us. The people that are hoarding and exploiting want you to believe that your existence is a burden on our planet.
I don’t have time to respond to accusations of corporate cheer leading and all the rest tonight. I will do my best to get to it tomorrow. I do have something to say before I catch my zzzzzzzzzzzz:
I have never meant to say “tax cuts for the rich” is all it takes to improve the economy and wages for middle and lower classes. I have talked about creating tax and spending policy that supports all classes in finding work and creating new jobs. I have defended those who invest in business and that certainly includes the rich. My focus has never been only big corporations, although I think the animosity against them is overblown generally speaking and very narrow. Big companies have done more good than ill in the world.
Tax cuts under Ronald Reagan and Bush were given to everyone, not just the wealthy, and the purpose was to give all income groups a financial break and instill a sense of hope about the future. Reagan’s aim was to invite innovation and invention…little guys like Ben and Jerry’s started out and became big successful companies during those years.
The generations under the Boomers aren’t anything to shout about. They have a huge sense of entitlement. They come out of high school and college thinking they should immediately get a job that pays them a high salary. they think they should be able to afford big homes, new cars, all kinds of furniture and gadgets and eat out for every meal. Their credit cards are maxed, they have no savings and no plans about their futures. That attitude and expectation will never give them success…and thinking that the wealth that others have acquired is somehow something they should be able to tap into by force of government is just ignorant…it’s not right.
If you want wealth you better figure on working, planning, saving, investing and yes, sacrificing. That or winning the lottery are your only choices unless you think being a slave to government will get you there.
I want a vibrant economy and good jobs for Americans. We can’t get there with big and growing government burdened by trillions in debt. The current administration aims to continue to grow government and we have to find a way to make them stop.
No one who criticizes supply side economics and letting Americans keep more of what they earn can explain to me how bigger government and higher taxes will create a vibrant and growing economy. No one that criticizes what has been called trickle down can explain how the current spending policy will create better jobs and a vibrant economy.
No one can explain how the economy created in the last (almost) four years under the policies of Barrack Obama will lead to higher paying jobs for the middle class and a more vibrant economy with more opportunity.
Rex and Chris, you find it easy to criticize me but please, explain how higher taxes and more spending will create a vibrant economy and jobs. Explain how poverty that has grown will finally resolve to people being better off.
Those are great questions Tina. I don’t believe that Obama is really doing anything to help us. Being stuck in this two party system is giving us the short end of the stick where the only winners are huge campaign contributors. I believe that Obama has gotten away with more atrocities because he is a charismatic democrat. (When republicans take away rights and prolong pointless wars people freak out.) Democrats and republicans are 2 sides of the same coin while other parties are completely marginalized. All this in-fighting has our fingers pointed in the wrong direction. As long we are being ruled by just democrats and republicans nothing is going to change. The only way we can stop these people from ignoring our interests and pandering to private interests is to drastically stop supporting them and I don’t see that happy anytime soon because people are too distracted content with their current boogymen.
Hopefully, this is the GOP and America’s future.
“Conservatism is not about leaving people behind. Conservatism is about empowering people to catch up, to give them the tools at their disposal that make it possible for them to access all the, all the promise, all the opportunity that America offers.”
Marco Rubio
Tina: “No one who criticizes supply side economics and letting Americans keep more of what they earn can explain to me how bigger government and higher taxes will create a vibrant and growing economy. No one that criticizes what has been called trickle down can explain how the current spending policy will create better jobs and a vibrant economy.
No one can explain how the economy created in the last (almost) four years under the policies of Barrack Obama will lead to higher paying jobs for the middle class and a more vibrant economy with more opportunity.
Rex and Chris, you find it easy to criticize me but please, explain how higher taxes and more spending will create a vibrant economy and jobs.”
But this stuff has been explained to you over and over. I’ve shown you the CBO data showing that government spending on the poor is much more stimulative to the economy than cutting taxes on businesses. I’ve explained that lack of consumer demand is the main problem with the economy, as the majority of small business owners have reported when polled. I have explained that more money in the pockets of the poor and middle class is exactly what’s needed to increase demand and get money going into the economy. I’ve explained that the rich are more likely to save their money, so tax cuts on them are not stimulative. I’ve explained why and how the New Deal worked, and the modest job growth that occurred as a result of Obama’s stimulus. These conclusions are supported by many economists across the ideological spectrum.
But you never engage with this data; you reject it out of hand and make false accusations of liberal bias. I’ve asked you twice now to explain what you think the flaws are in the CRS report showing no correlation between tax cuts on the rich and revenue increases, and you won’t answer, because you don’t know what the flaws are in their methodology; you are simply convinced that they are wrong because that is what the Heritage Foundation tells you.
We’re explaining it just fine. You refuse to listen.
Site where you can find revenues for fed and states for any year:
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/year_revenue_1988USbn_13bs1n#usgs302
In 1978 under Carter revenue to the federal government was $240.9 billion. In 1984 revenues rose to $$355.3 billion and by 1988 revenues were $495.7 billion according to this interactive site. Reagan’s economic policy did increase revenues and after the malaise under Carter it was a blessing to the people of this country.
An easy to understand explanation of the Reagan Tax POLICY that included much more than tax cuts can be found here:
http://www.easy-tax-information.com/reagan-tax-cuts.html
“…flaws were in the CRS study that found lowering tax rates on the rich only leads to further income inequality, not higher revenues.”
I posted the link to a site where you can see for your self that revenues to the federal government increased under Reagan’s economic policies and lower tax rates.
There are many reasons for income inequality and their are a lot of myths about income inequality. I resent the term in political use because it invokes emotions and doesn’t inform…it’s deceptive. At the link below Lance Ginn lists 6 myths about this term. I’ll post two…I hope you will read the rest.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/12319/6-myths-about-income-inequality-in-america:
Rex there is not a finite amount of wealth in the world that wealthy people hoard so that others remain poor.
Wealth is created! Most people who create wealth do not become extremely rich…only a few reach the highest pinnacle. But a lot of wealth builders have made a comfortable living and given others a chance to do the same. If they are smart and save and invest carefully they can build wealth over time.
Wealth can be diminished or destroyed. We saw what stupid lending policies and regulations did when it created a housing bubble and banking crisis. Government made both happen by creating an artificial market and too many bad loans. The growing bubble attracted giddy investors, investment pigs looking to score big. Government regulators failed, and our representatives failed, to take steps to prevent the crash. When it all collapsed government saved the big guys, the unions, special interests and the rest of us got screwed…our buying power, our wealth was destroyed. Inflation is caused when government prints money. That makes your dollars worth LESS…wealth destruction in every penny!
Your head has been filled with garbage and it’s ruining your chances to find a way to live a more prosperous life. It prevents you from perceiving the better choice in leadership.
I have no desire to tell you what to do or how to think but if I were you I would seriously begin to explore wealth creation you seem to be a man who would love to have more choices and better opportunities.
Real world evidence that current policies stink and cutting taxes and spending less at the government level works better to create a thriving economy and jobs:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/11/a-land-less-free/
And our current leaders (all of them) are failing us in this regard.
I have three (adult) kids and two (nearing adulthood) grandchildren that need more opportunity. I’m pretty da*#ed unhappy with what is going on in this country. I want them to have opportunities to create prosperity for themselves…as this president often says, I have “skin in the game”…people I care about. I don’t have time left to play games about what works.
Rex if you have any chance for a brighter future at all it certainly won’t be with the ideas and policies that this administration has embraced. They are similar to the policies that unnecessarily extended The Great Depression.
You don’t have power on your own to change government but you can become a better informed voter. You can’t change the fact that there are unscrupulously run businesses. But at least you can avoid them and chose people to do business with that are honest. You can’t change the current economic situation but you can and do put limits on yourself that you can remove or overcome. May I make a suggestion? Read an article a day for a year at the following site…it might change your attitude about the many small to medium sized business people that are the backbone of our nation and the wealth creators that offer most people a chance for a decent life:
http://www.successmagazinesltd.com/
America needs for you and others like you to learn everything you can about how wealth is created so you can understand how limited government and low taxes will create more opportunity for you and the rest of our citizens.
You’re right about one thing, our educational system. It’s another matter for another day but, Rex, you can learn about almost anything with that computer of yours. Be honest (with yourself not me), what is holding you back? How can you overcome obstacles? Where would you like to be in five years and how can you get there, or at least move toward your goal?
I’ll leave you with one more article and an excerpt from it:
http://www.briantracy.com/view/current-events/empowering-america-entrepreneurs/
Rex your language is filled with inflammatory yack. I hope you find a way to set it aside and begin to discover how to make your life meaningful and more prosperous…including how to create wealth for yourself.
Tina, Have you heard about all of the new repair/fix it yourself businesses opening up all over? The first one I heard about was up in Seattle Wash. where a group of friends who were good at fixing things decided to open a shop where people could bring in anything ranging from lawnmowers to toasters they wanted to fix instead of throwing away instead of spending money on a new one. It reminded me of the way my parents and my generation lived. We fixed things until they couldn’t be fixed any more before we’d spend the money to replace them.
The second one I heard about was an automotive shop down in Arizona. I found the video on it, but couldn’t on the one in Washington.
http://www.nbcdfw.com/the-scene/cars/Do-It-Yourself-Auto-Repair-Shop-121957094.html
Necessity is the mother of invention. Once again, because of our bad economic situation people are returning to fixing things to save money they no longer have to spend on buying new. Of course this doesn’t help our economic recovery, but it helps put food on our tables just as it did our parents who lived through our other great depression.
Tina: “I posted the link to a site where you can see for your self that revenues to the federal government increased under Reagan’s economic policies and lower tax rates.”
Yes, but even *the guy who drafted the Reagan tax cut*, Bruce Bartlett, says that this didn’t work during the Bush years and wouldn’t work today. Revenues fell in the two years after the Bush tax cut was enacted. Bartlett explains the many reasons why this worked under Reagan here, as well as why it’s not some law of economics that tax cuts always work:
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-02-03/opinions/35443389_1_tax-rate-reagan-tax-payroll-tax
“When comparing Reagan’s policies with Republican proposals today, several things stand out. Inflation is low now. We are not looking at “bracket creep” or sharply rising taxes, as we were in the late 1970s. The top income tax rate is 35 percent, half the rate Reagan inherited. And federal revenue is at a 60-year low of about 15 percent of GDP, compared with a post-World War II average of about 18.5 percent.
These differences are essential to understanding why Reagan’s policies worked when they did — and why they are not appropriate today.
All of the evidence tells us that the economy’s fundamental problem today is not on the supply side but the demand side. According to a recent study by Credit Suisse, two-thirds of the difference in growth at this point in the business cycle, compared with previous cycles, is due to slower consumer spending. And low inflation — as well as widespread unemployment, vast stocks of unsold houses, empty factories and other indicators — tells us that money is tight, not loose, as was the case in the late 1970s.
“Low interest rates are generally a sign that money has been tight,” economist Milton Friedman wrote in 1997. Yet, absurdly, Republicans continually berate the Federal Reserve for being too easy; some even insist, insanely, that the United States should return to the gold standard, even though it was a key cause of the Great Depression.
Because inflation and interest rates are low, Fed policy is constrained today in ways it was not in the early 1980s. Back then, the Fed could bring down the federal funds rate to a little less than the inflation rate and create negative real rates, thus stimulating borrowing, investment and consumption. It can’t do that now because it can’t reduce market interest rates below zero.
Economic conditions are entirely different today than they were in Reagan’s era, and different conditions demand different policies. Those who say otherwise are simply engaging in cookie-cutter economics — proposing whatever was popular and seemed to work once, without regard to changing circumstances.”
Tina, you continue to claim that those who “create wealth” are business owners, corporations, investors, and the rich. By doing so you are making exactly the mistake Bartlett warns against: focusing on the “supply side” rather than the “demand side.”
As Bartlett points out, the main problem in our economy is lack of demand. As I have repeatedly argued, this is due primarily to falling wages and outsourcing. The minimum wage is lower now than it was in 1968, and your response has been–hilariously–that we should get rid of minimum wage laws altogether. You blame unions for poor economic conditions, but union membership in America is at an all-time low and only about 7% of private sector workers are unionized.
You continue to insist that if we just make things easier for businesses, our conditions will improve. But in reality, business owners have been allowed to accumulate too much power in relation to their employees over the last few decades. We need to do something direct for workers, not their bosses. We need tighter regulations on outsourcing and a higher minimum wage. We need to bring jobs home and improve working conditions. This will benefit the true “wealth creators,” middle class citizens whose spending is crucial to a healthy economy.
MIT Professor Paul Osterman explains more at CNN:
“Every politician in America declares concern for the economic crisis of the middle class. But to truly help the middle class, we must take on our nation’s exploding economic inequality.
Consider two basic facts: Between 1979 and 2007, the top 1% of households captured almost 60% of all income growth in the U.S., yet median wage growth in the 2000s has been flat.
In his Kansas speech on the economy this month, President Obama described the growing inequality as the “defining issue of our time.” He urged America to avoid a race to the bottom and instead to create good, well-paying jobs.
The president laid out a series of important steps to restore fairness by repairing the tax and regulatory system, but these strategies are not enough. Nor is improving education; that’s obviously important, but it will take many years to have an impact.
To make a significant difference for working men and women today and the generations who follow, we must directly take on the unfairness of the job market. The distribution of economic rewards is driven by the jobs people hold, and we have allowed job quality to deteriorate for far too many for far too long.
How do we know that a lack of job quality contributes to growing inequality? At the bottom of the labor market, 20% of adults in the U.S. today work in jobs that pay poverty wages, wages that would not raise a family of four above the poverty line, even with full-time, year-round work.
Farther up the ladder, jobs have been disassembled. It used to be that a skilled job, either white- or blue-collar, paid decently, provided reasonable benefits and offered security. We left that reality behind long ago. Only about half of jobs in the U.S. today provide pensions.
Job security has eroded; many who are laid off face a substantial risk of falling into poverty. Even if laid-off workers are lucky enough to find new jobs, they are forced to take a 20% pay cut, according to my calculations using Census surveys. Being skilled no longer earns decent pay, benefits or security.
Any serious effort to address the travails of the middle class must include taking on the challenges of making the job market more fair. But even as politicians lambast Wall Street and propose making taxes more fair, they avoid the challenge of improving job quality.
What would that take? For those earning poverty wages, the answer is to raise standards and to enforce them. Today’s minimum wage is more than $3 below its value in 1968, after accounting for inflation. Today, too many employers avoid paying overtime to employees who have earned it, and effective enforcement of the law to avoid this wage theft is important. A stronger voice for workers, such as unions, can improve economic outcomes, but the law today is stacked against union organizing.
For people still clinging to decent jobs, the challenge is more complicated. We need a new social contract — between employers and employees.
In the past, when many American firms did well, they shared profits and productivity gains with their employees. That is no longer the standard. In the past, CEOs were praised if they showed a commitment to their work forces, if they saw human capital as their key competitive asset. That, too, has changed. We cannot return to the placid labor market of the 1950s and ’60s, but we can certainly rekindle a sense of mutual commitment and fairness.
What will it take to begin to do all this? Leadership is critical to the solution. Our political and business leaders need to step up. There are plenty of examples of firms that respect their work forces, from Southwest Airlines to SAS software, and their model should be emulated.
But it would be naïve to think that purely voluntary action and exhortation will turn the tide. For a real shift, we need real policy initiatives. These include increased public support for deepening training, investments in the human capital of the work force, which can come via the tax code and well-designed public-private training programs.
Also important are modernized regulations that would make it difficult for employers to use subcontractors in occupations such as building cleaners or security guards and by doing so avoid responsibility for employees who work at their site. Giving employees an even playing field in deciding whether they want to be represented by a union can also make a big difference.
In addition, governments can set an example by paying attention to the employment terms of firms that receive government contracts and to which local, state and federal governments contract out services.
Even in the current economy, we can afford to make these choices. And if we want to rebuild a strong middle class, we cannot afford to postpone them.
The inequality that has steadily grown over the past three decades can’t be solved with a quick fix. But until we focus on job quality, we cannot expect any significant progress. Improving the quality of jobs for most
Americans over time is the best way to meet the growing popular demand for economic fairness.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/28/opinion/osterman-jobs-inequality/index.html
Paul Abrams, himself a wealthy entrepeneur, makes the same argument in the Huffington Post:
“Like Republicans, I believe that U.S. policy should do all it can to help job-creators. The only difference is that I know who the real job-creators are and they don’t.
As fellow-entrepreneur Nick Hanauer has pointed out, it is the middle class that is the driver of job creation. Not only do middle class people actually make the goods and deliver the services, it is their consumption that drives business to need more workers.
It will not come as a surprise to the Koch Boys that entrepreneurs do not create businesses for the purpose of creating jobs. They provide jobs only as necessary, and only if they cannot get the work done without them. Businesses do not invest in new equipment, they do not hire more people to use the new equipment, unless the ultimate purchaser needs and can afford their products or services.
So, as with most things, Republicans have it upside-down. Contrary to their policies, the best way to create jobs through economic growth is to focus policies to help our middle class.
Here are a few measures that would help the middle class create jobs:
1. Raise the minimum wage to $10 in stages over the next 12 months and index it to inflation (as we do in Washington State). That will put more purchasing power in the hands of the middle class and not cost the Treasury one dime. In fact, it will increase tax revenues because the middle class would not hide its income in the Cayman Islands.
2. Stop subsidizing offshoring jobs through the tax-code.
3. Pass a $2T “Domestic Marshall Plan” to rebuild America as we rebuilt Europe. Pay for it with a 0.5 percent tax on financial transactions that will bring in $150B/yr, and closing the Romney tax-shelter loopholes that will add another $100B/yr. In 8 years, the economic foundation of the United States would be modernized and paid for (neither of which would occur under Republican plans).
4. Replace the social security and payroll taxes with a progressive sales tax (exempting food, rent, medicines, physicians’ fees and other categories on which working people spend most of their income) on goods and services. This puts American-made goods and services on a level playing field with imports.
In addition, something needs to be done to stop foreclosures on first homes. That is the subject of a longer piece, but I and others have suggested some version of reducing mortgage principals to reflect current value and providing mortgage holders a percent interest in the property in exchange.
Let us make this a truly “Happy” Labor Day by recognizing our real job creators, and by rallying behind policies that will them help themselves and create jobs for others.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/real-job-creators-are-the_b_1852534.html