Skip to main content

I specified economics because I agree with the liberals on the social issues.

Why do you want an economic system that discourages entrepreneurs and investors from wanting to put money to work? It seems like most of you don't like the idea of someone starting a company and turning it into a big company and I'm just wondering why that is? Tia
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

You're imagining that most liberals are lefty/socialist types when that's just not the case. Speaking as a liberal, I think it's great when someone starts a company and becomes successful and I don't want a system that discourages entrepreneurs. Believing that the country would be better off if our economic policy were slightly to the left doesn't mean you want to take it to the extreme left, just like believing it should be slightly to the right doesn't make you Ayn Rand. Partisans on both sides love to point out extreme views on the other side to rally their own side, but I truly believe that most Americans are pretty close to the center (center-right compared to the rest of the Western world), and (most of) the politicians we elect reflect that.

Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
I specified economics because I agree with the liberals on the social issues.

Why do you want an economic system that discourages entrepreneurs and investors from wanting to put money to work? It seems like most of you don't like the idea of someone starting a company and turning it into a big company and I'm just wondering why that is? Tia

______________________________________________________

With agreeing completely with the Liberals on Social issues you have to agree with their economics. I’m not one to cut off all those receiving Government aid, there are some that are truly in need. Economics and Social issues in this Country or any Country go hand in hand. Remember what started this financial mess, people given loans by greedy relaters and some financial institutions and Government policy to get people who couldn't afford it into homes.

Skippy

Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
I specified economics because I agree with the liberals on the social issues.

Why do you want an economic system that discourages entrepreneurs and investors from wanting to put money to work? It seems like most of you don't like the idea of someone starting a company and turning it into a big company and I'm just wondering why that is? Tia

 

"If by a 'Liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal,' then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." 

John F. Kennedy

Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party nomination (14 September 1960)

 

Who Are The Job Creators?

 

It is astounding how significantly one idea can shape a society and its policies.  Consider this one: If taxes on the rich go up, job creation will go down.

 

This idea is an article of faith for republicans and seldom challenged by democrats and has shaped much of today’s economic landscape.

 

But sometimes the ideas that we know to be true are dead wrong. For thousands of years people were sure that earth was at the center of the universe.  It’s not, and an astronomer who still believed that it was, would do some lousy astronomy.


In the same way, a policy maker who believed that the rich and businesses are “job creators” and therefore should not be taxed, would make equally bad policy.


I have started or helped start, dozens of businesses and initially hired lots of people. But if no one could have afforded to buy what we had to sell, my businesses would all have failed and all those jobs would have evaporated.


That’s why I can say with confidence that rich people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is a “circle of life” like feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion this virtuous cycle of increasing demand and hiring. In this sense, an ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than a capitalist like me.


If it were true that lower tax rates and more wealth for the wealthy  would lead to more job creation, then today we would be drowning in jobs.  And yet unemployment and under-employment is at record highs.


Here’s an incredible fact.  If the typical American family still got today the same share of income they earned in 1980, they would earn about 25% more and have an astounding $13,000 more a year. Where would the economy be if that were the case?


We’ve had it backward for the last 30 years. Rich businesspeople like me don’t create jobs. Rather they are a consequence of an eco-systemic  feedback loop animated by middle-class consumers, and when they thrive, businesses grow and hire, and owners profit. That’s why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is a great deal for both the middle class and the rich.


So here’s an idea worth spreading.

 

In a capitalist economy, the true job creators are consumers, the middle class.  And taxing the rich to make investments that grow the middle class, is the single smartest thing we can do for the middle class, the poor and the rich.


http://www.joeydevilla.com/201...re-the-job-creators/

To borrow a response from the article that I agree with.

Middle class consumers are not “job creators”. They are merely “job validators”.

 


And only consumers can set in motion this virtuous cycle of increasing demand and hiring.

That’s not quite right. Take the iPhone. The iPhone was a product we didn’t know we wanted. We didn’t even know it was possible. While consumers validated Apple’s investment, we didn’t “set in motion” anything. We reacted.

All Hanauer is really saying is that producers are limited by the realities of consumer demand. Yes, that’s true. Cue the epic TED music and applause. But that doesn’t make middle class consumers “job creators”. They are merely “job validators”. They provide data to the people who do the hiring and the firing.

It’s all part of an interconnected system. You can’t have producers or jobs without consumers, nor vice versa. We should optimize around fairness, un-gameability, and easing upward mobility. “Tax the rich people and give their money to the middle class” is as facile an argument as “rich people create jobs; lower their taxes”.

Originally Posted by The Propagandist:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
I specified economics because I agree with the liberals on the social issues.

Why do you want an economic system that discourages entrepreneurs and investors from wanting to put money to work? It seems like most of you don't like the idea of someone starting a company and turning it into a big company and I'm just wondering why that is? Tia

 

"If by a 'Liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal,' then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." 

John F. Kennedy

Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party nomination (14 September 1960)

 

Who Are The Job Creators?

 

It is astounding how significantly one idea can shape a society and its policies.  Consider this one: If taxes on the rich go up, job creation will go down.

 

This idea is an article of faith for republicans and seldom challenged by democrats and has shaped much of today’s economic landscape.

 

But sometimes the ideas that we know to be true are dead wrong. For thousands of years people were sure that earth was at the center of the universe.  It’s not, and an astronomer who still believed that it was, would do some lousy astronomy.


In the same way, a policy maker who believed that the rich and businesses are “job creators” and therefore should not be taxed, would make equally bad policy.


I have started or helped start, dozens of businesses and initially hired lots of people. But if no one could have afforded to buy what we had to sell, my businesses would all have failed and all those jobs would have evaporated.


That’s why I can say with confidence that rich people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is a “circle of life” like feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion this virtuous cycle of increasing demand and hiring. In this sense, an ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than a capitalist like me.


If it were true that lower tax rates and more wealth for the wealthy  would lead to more job creation, then today we would be drowning in jobs.  And yet unemployment and under-employment is at record highs.


Here’s an incredible fact.  If the typical American family still got today the same share of income they earned in 1980, they would earn about 25% more and have an astounding $13,000 more a year. Where would the economy be if that were the case?


We’ve had it backward for the last 30 years. Rich businesspeople like me don’t create jobs. Rather they are a consequence of an eco-systemic  feedback loop animated by middle-class consumers, and when they thrive, businesses grow and hire, and owners profit. That’s why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is a great deal for both the middle class and the rich.


So here’s an idea worth spreading.

 

In a capitalist economy, the true job creators are consumers, the middle class.  And taxing the rich to make investments that grow the middle class, is the single smartest thing we can do for the middle class, the poor and the rich.


http://www.joeydevilla.com/201...re-the-job-creators/

Prop, 

 

1. When the author of your article talks about the middle class share of income it sounds like he is assuming the pie is static and there are only so many slices to go around. That simply is not the case. A solution to his issue is to further cut taxes on the middle class, which I am in favor of. 

 

2. "That’s why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is a great deal for both the middle class and the rich."-quote from your article

 

Ok, this is where "Joey" and I really differ. Who decides what investments "benefit all"? Gov't? Gov't has no business picking projects to invest in. Resources can be allocated much more efficiently by the private sector because the private sector has skin in the game. The gov't has no motive to be efficient because there is no profit for them nor do they have any of their own money in the game. The solar fiasco is a great example. My guess is that if you made the politicians put up their own personal money in the solar projects alongside that of the taxpayers then resources would have been allocated a bit differently.

 

3. He doesn't address our current tax code and how it is becoming less and less competitive with other countries. Venture capitalists, entrepreneurs, etc... are no different than consumers. If you are shopping for a TV and store A has the TV you like for $1000 and store B has it for $900 then you are going to buy from store B all other things being equal. 

 

If you are looking to start a company or looking for a place to headquarter your current company and country A has a corp tax rate of 35% with a CG tax rate of 15% and country B has a corp tax rate of 12% and no tax on CG then you are going to pick country B. 

 

I majored in economics in college and have a MBA and have always believed in laissez-faire economic policies because the data suggests that the private sector works best without the burdensome hand of gov't holding it back. It is why I am a Libertarian because the Repubs are not that much better than the Dems when it comes to limiting the role of gov't in our lives.

 

Oh well, Prop. At least we can agree on abortion, gay rights, legalizing drugs, the silly war in Iraq, and civil liberties. 

Originally Posted by skippy delepepper:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
I specified economics because I agree with the liberals on the social issues.

Why do you want an economic system that discourages entrepreneurs and investors from wanting to put money to work? It seems like most of you don't like the idea of someone starting a company and turning it into a big company and I'm just wondering why that is? Tia

______________________________________________________

With agreeing completely with the Liberals on Social issues you have to agree with their economics. I’m not one to cut off all those receiving Government aid, there are some that are truly in need. Economics and Social issues in this Country or any Country go hand in hand. Remember what started this financial mess, people given loans by greedy relaters and some financial institutions and Government policy to get people who couldn't afford it into homes.

Skippy

 

Skippy, gov't aid to the needy can be eliminated for the most part and handled by private organizations. We already give more to charity than the rest of the world combined. Give individuals a dollar deduction on their income for every dollar donated to charity and you will see charitable contributions increase even further.

"And taxing the rich to make investments that grow the middle class, is the single smartest thing we can do for the middle class, the poor and the rich."

 

Governments have a remarkably bad re****tion for choosing winners to transfer wealth to start businesses.  Rural Italy and Spain are dotted with crumbling factories and plants paid for by government that were supposed to lift up the areas.  Only when India backed off and let private industry in did they start to flourish.

 

The reasons are fairly simple.  When a private investor -- bank or individuals back a business they are careful with their money, or the money they are entrusted with.  Government backing is usually the work or bureaucrats and politicians. If bureaucrats fail they do not suffer -- there is no penalty for failing to spend funds wisely  If politicians are involved, then corruption is nearly a given -- observe the grants that went to all the green companies, the friends of Obama who got paid before the government, if the companies failed.  I'm not blaming just Obama, political influence in return for favors is nearly a given throughout the world. 

All told, including dividend, interest and other payments, U.S. banks have repaid the government $211.5 billion under the Capital Purchase Program (CPP), the first phase of the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), according to a report Thursday by the Government Accountability Office, a congressional watchdog. That's more than the $204.9 billion the banks initially got under TARP.

$211.5 billion minus $204.9 billion equals profit, right?

But 48 percent of the banks that have repaid the CPP used money they'd gotten from other federal programs, according to the GAO report. Those programs include the Community Development Capital Initiative -- another TARP program -- and the Small Business Lending Fund, a program designed to encourage lending to small businesses. Both of those programs have more favorable borrowing terms for the banks than the original CPP.

 

 

really!?!?!?

 

***full article here**

 

 

It would seem that these two articles are contradictory. This one is from the Treasury dept who should know how much has been paid back and this is from a year ago. Of $245 billion to banks, $243 had been paid back.

 

TARP's bank bailout program nears break-even point with latest repayment

 

 

February 2, 2011 | The program under the $700-billion financial bailout package that pumped money into banks moved closer to break-even Wednesday as another large financial institution repaid its cash infusion.

The Treasury Department announced that Fifth Third Bancorp had fully repaid the $3.4 billion it received  from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. The Cincinnati institution received the money on Dec. 31, 2008 -- some of the $245 billion dished out under TARP's Capital Purchase Program to stabilize the U.S. banking system.

With the check from Fifth Third Bancorp, total repayments under that program have reached $243 billion, Treasury said. Programs that bailed out banks are now estimated to turn a $20-billion profit.

 “As the economy heals, we’re continuing to see private capital step up and replace public support in the financial sector, which has dramatically lowered the cost of TARP for taxpayers,” said Tim Massad, who heads TARP as acting assistant Treasury secretary for financial stability.

Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by skippy delepepper:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
I specified economics because I agree with the liberals on the social issues.

Why do you want an economic system that discourages entrepreneurs and investors from wanting to put money to work? It seems like most of you don't like the idea of someone starting a company and turning it into a big company and I'm just wondering why that is? Tia

______________________________________________________

With agreeing completely with the Liberals on Social issues you have to agree with their economics. I’m not one to cut off all those receiving Government aid, there are some that are truly in need. Economics and Social issues in this Country or any Country go hand in hand. Remember what started this financial mess, people given loans by greedy relaters and some financial institutions and Government policy to get people who couldn't afford it into homes.

Skippy

 

Skippy, gov't aid to the needy can be eliminated for the most part and handled by private organizations. We already give more to charity than the rest of the world combined. Give individuals a dollar deduction on their income for every dollar donated to charity and you will see charitable contributions increase even further.

___

The tax code ALREADY allows gifts to qualified charitable institutions to be deducted from income. I have legally taken that deduction for years.  Or do you intend to mean a "tax credit" rather than a deduction from gross income.

Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by seeweed:

This chart is worth contemplating :

This is not a repub vs dem thing. However, do you really think a $10t economy stops and turns on a dime based on which party is in the white house?

__

If the statistics showed the same advantages under GOP administrations, the right wing would constantly be claiming credit for it.

You will also notice that this is where the claims of more jobs created come from but it does not mention in the original chart that this is ONLY for private sector jobs and does not include federal, state, or local government jobs created. It's easy to guess the dot com boom gave Clinton his boost. Also notice that the three+ years of Obama are .04.

You are assuming that the political propaganda that you have been bombarded with by the proxies of the wealthy, who are politically active, mostly republican, like the Koch brothers, who fund the Tea Party, is true. 

 

Statistically, and based on facts, the tax rates for the wealthy have been very much higher in past years and had no correlation to small business growth.   Taxes are lower now for working people actually than when George W. Bush was president.  At one time the "rich" paid almost 50% of their income in taxes and it didn't seem to slow them down a bit making more money.  I'm not advocating going back to that but there is no proof that raising the taxes on the wealthy stops them from trying to make more money. 

 

There were many incentives, including tax incentives for small business, in both the Obama stimulus plan, and "Obamacare".  Of course t hey are not going to tell you that.   Ask the people on Wall street the only "small business" that will be taxed in the proposed plans are high priced law firms, and wall street hedge funds.

 

Did you know that these hedge funds that ruin many small investors, have their income classified capital gains, so they pay much less tax than a working man at a factory?  These are the people that you are protecting when you advocate keeping "rich" peoples taxes lower than yours percentage wise.

 

And another thing, why do working people join the Tea party, and support lowering taxes on "rich" people to lower rates than their own, while the Tea Party is trying to end Medicare and reduce Social Security, which most of them depend on?  Incredible.

"At one time the "rich" paid almost 50% of their income in taxes and it didn't seem to slow them down a bit making more money.  I'm not advocating going back to that but there is no proof that raising the taxes on the wealthy stops them from trying to make more money."

 

Of course, the wealthy rare paid those high rates.  Tax dodges such as cattle feed lots were popular in the 1980s. Or, they move their investments from to tax free state, municipal and TIFF bonds.  Secretary of the Treasury Mellon complained to congress of this during the 1920s.  

 

In truth, I've moved some of  my retirement funds to such bonds in anticipation of higher taxes. 

Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
 
 

 Prop, 


1. When the author of your article talks about the middle class share of income it sounds like he is assuming the pie is static and there are only so many slices to go around. That simply is not the case. A solution to his issue is to further cut taxes on the middle class, which I am in favor of. 

 

The pie is getting bigger – no doubt about that -- that fact is evidenced by increasing GDP. But the share going to people lower down the economic scale is not increasing. The pie is getting bigger, but their slices remain the same size, making their % share of the pie less and less. Those at the top are getting whatever part of the pie is getting bigger.

 

Or, instead of a pie, let’s use the example of building a house. The house is getting bigger: Maybe you add on another bedroom or a deck out back. But the number of nails you are given to build with remains the same. This is the plight of the middle class for the past 30-40 years. They have a choice to make. They can either skimp on the number of nails they would normally use -- leading to a lesser-quality house (lower standard of living) or borrow some nails (go into debt). Either way, they aren't sharing in the increase of GDP their labor provides.



 

Both charts: http://crookedtimber.org/2009/...y-whats-the-problem/

 

2. "That’s why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is a great deal for both the middle class and the rich."-quote from your article

 

Ok, this is where "Joey" and I really differ. Who decides what investments "benefit all"? Gov't? Gov't has no business picking projects to invest in. Resources can be allocated much more efficiently by the private sector because the private sector has skin in the game. The gov't has no motive to be efficient because there is no profit for them nor do they have any of their own money in the game. The solar fiasco is a great example. My guess is that if you made the politicians put up their own personal money in the solar projects alongside that of the taxpayers then resources would have been allocated a bit differently.

 

Government does not exist to make a profit; government is there to provide a serviceGovernment does what it does because we as a society have decided that it is something that should be done.


About taxes: If government has a deficit (loss in private enterprise), then it is not taxing enough to do what we want it to do. If government has a surplus (profit in private enterprise), then it is either not doing what it is supposed to be doing, or if it is, then it is taxing too much.

 

If something is left solely to private enterprise, it won’t be done without a profit. Let’s take your drinking water: 

 

Growth of large private water companies brings higher water rates, little recourse for consumers

http://www.statesman.com/news/...-higher-2038684.html

 

Implications of Privatization of Water Utilities

Here are examples where privatized water utilities have posed risks of rate hikes, negative economic impacts, inadequate customer service, and harm to natural resources.

http://www.serconline.org/wate...vatization/fact.html

 

On one hand, many would say privatization has produced the intended benefits. Many water systems in poor countries would not exist but for the private funding mandated by international lending institutions. Cases in which privatization has worked well usually include special voucher programs whereby purchases for those unable to afford water are subsidized by the government or aid organizations. [Not purely free enterprise; it does have government participation – and taxes to pay for it.]

 

On the other hand, privatization is often seen as having failed much of the world’s poor.

  • In their efforts to recoup often significant investments, private water companies usually increase prices on the water they provide.  In some cases, these price increases have been so hefty as to knock poor consumers out of the market entirely, leaving them, again, with no access to water because they cannot afford it even when it is physically accessible.
  • When profit is a motive in water provision, less lucrative services often suffer.  Efficiency dictates that resources go where they produce the highest return – this means poor rural areas and other hard-to-serve customer bases get lower priority.
  • In some cases, private companies have retreated from particularly poor areas where returns on investment have been low or from areas where local resistance and protests against privatization have made for bad public relations – see below.  In these cases, the cost of picking up the pieces is often higher for local governments than it might have been had the private companies not been there in the first place.

http://worldsavvy.org/monitor/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=715&Itemid=1202

 

3. He doesn't address our current tax code and how it is becoming less and less competitive with other countries. Venture capitalists, entrepreneurs, etc... are no different than consumers. If you are shopping for a TV and store A has the TV you like for $1000 and store B has it for $900 then you are going to buy from store B all other things being equal. 

 

If you are looking to start a company or looking for a place to headquarter your current company and country A has a corp tax rate of 35% with a CG tax rate of 15% and country B has a corp tax rate of 12% and no tax on CG then you are going to pick country B. 

 

U.S. Corporate Tax Rate Plunges To 40 Year Low Of 12.1 Percent

 

Total corporate federal taxes paid fell to 12.1% of profits earned from activities within the U.S. in fiscal 2011, which ended Sept. 30, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That’s the lowest level since at least 1972. And well below the 25.6% companies paid on average from 1987 to 2008.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/econo...e-taxes-40-year-low/

Original story (now available only with subscription)

With Tax Break, Corporate Rate Is Lowest in Decades

http://online.wsj.com/article/...199492233215330.html

 

I majored in economics in college and have a MBA and have always believed in laissez-faire economic policies because the data suggests that the private sector works best without the burdensome hand of gov't holding it back. It is why I am a Libertarian because the Repubs are not that much better than the Dems when it comes to limiting the role of gov't in our lives. ...

 

... Except when Republicans want to have big intrusive government. Then they outrun the Democrats in placing shackles on personal liberty!

 

GOP conservatism: authoritarian or libertarian?

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the...ow/42331193#42331193

 

Oh well, Prop. At least we can agree on abortion, gay rights, legalizing drugs, the silly war in Iraq, and civil liberties. 

 

Vive la différence!  Vive la similarité! 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×