Monday, April 18, 2011

For the Left the Answer Is... Soak the Job Creators... AKA: The Rich

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

While the pResident contents himself with playing the perennial popular class envy and class warfare card the reality is...

From The Wall Street Journal.
A dominant theme of President Obama's budget speech last Wednesday was that our fiscal problems would vanish if only the wealthiest Americans were asked "to pay a little more." Since he's asking, imagine that instead of proposing to raise the top income tax rate well north of 40%, the President decided to go all the way to 100%.

Let's stipulate that this is a thought experiment, because Democrats don't need any more ideas. But it's still a useful experiment because it exposes the fiscal futility of raising rates on the top 2%, or even the top 5% or 10%, of taxpayers to close the deficit. The mathematical reality is that in the absence of entitlement reform on the Paul Ryan model, Washington will need to soak the middle class—because that's where the big money is...

I have been saying this for years: It has always been the middle class that has to foot the bill for the statist policies of our federal government.

Unfortunately, the middle class, as well as others, have bought into the myth that if only the government soaks the rich, the job creators, and the wealthy, we can solve all our national problems.

Do the math folks. Hold to reason and the truth. Eventually {hopefully} this nation may figure it out.

For more visit The Lonely Conservative.

Cross posted to the Left Coast Rebel

Via: Memeorandum, Graphic via.


  1. If there is no demand, does that still make the rich "job creators?"

    I guess being servants is a job isn't it?

  2. #1: The rich are not the "job creators." That's a myth. We have a consumption tilted economy. It is driven by demand - demand of the masses, not the rich. We have a 70% consumer spending based economy.

    #2 The rich do not supply that much of the demand with American jobs. The rich have been moving jobs overseas for years for cheap labor, costing far, far more jobs than creating any. Job creation has always been lower the more laizzez faire the government. Always. We now have only a 22% industrial contribution to the GDP. We have an over 75% of GDP service sector, with the fewer and lower wage jobs that come it.

    #3: The wealthier one is, the more risk averse he is. That is a scientifically proven fact. That is why the fastest generator of jobs in recent history has been in the small business sector, and the rich have little share in that. It is the less wealthy that are taking teh risks and starting the small businesses that are creating the jobs. Period.

    Ya' know, I could go on and on, but once again I am solidly, logically, truthfully, proving beyond that shadow of a doubt that a basic tenet of Objectivism is wrong and I can safely assume you obstenately refuse to see it. You could fact-check it until the end of time, and not disprove the above points.

    Why are you an Objectivist? It just makes no sense?


  3. I totally agree with Obama. Those damn richies need to pay for his voter base's needs and victimhood mentality. So what if the majority of Americans don't pay their taxes? The richies do. And Obama should take more from them because it's only fair that they pay more and more, right? It's not like rich people will miss it or anything. Baby #5 needs a new pair of shoes, and Obama Stash is the way to go.

    Tax the richies. Well, except for the ones who voted for and have believed in Obama all along. I mean, they deserve their rewards of keeping their money. They're not selfish and hateful richies like those damn Republiscums who obviously hate the poor. Don't they know their money should go to make the poor less poor? Duh! It's all about equality, baby.

    Obama 2012!! Tax those richies and get me some Obama Cash!

    Donald in Bethel, CT

  4. I have to admit it, Les, I'm in favor of the top rates going back to 40% (I might raise the threshold to $300-400,000), too. BUT, I'm also in favor of a lot of other things; reducing military spending/commitments, increasing the retirement age to 69, going through the discretionary budget with a fine-toothed comb and eliminating duplicative services and idiocy such as ethanol subsidies, etc.. The way that I see it here, a comprehensive approach (along the lines of the Simpson-Bowles commission) is the only thing that's probably going to work.

  5. JMJ - I understand the law of supply and demand. Obviously if there is no demand there is no need for supply.

    As I see it the issue with jobs going overseas is in large part one of competitiveness. The US may be the most productive nation with respect to output per labor hour. however in output per labor dollar the picture changes.

    So whats the answer? One possibility is imposing tariffs. Goes against the "free market mentality" for sure. Perhaps the answer is a "fair market" or level playing field. But come to think of it this would ultimately pose problems as well. Don't you think?

    The only way to create wealth is through production of goods or products desired by society. Service or government jobs do not "produce" anything. The fact we are losing manufacturing jobs is unfortunate. This is in part due to the incredible improvements in efficiencies, and your point above.

    I realize that the greatest job growth comes from small entrepreneurial business. To the government $250,000 is considered wealthy. You take it from there.

    I am an Objectivist because... Beyond that statement I feel no compulsion to explain my reasoning further.

  6. Donald - ROFLMAO! Sometimes you just have a way with words! ;)

  7. Will - We have a spending problem, not a ack of revenue problem in my opinion.

    We need to reduce outlays for the MIC absolutely, we need to seriously trim our foreign aid as our global altruism is helping to choke this nation,we need to close tax loopholes and simplify our tax code (I actually posted on this some time back, we need to reduce or eliminate unnecessary regulatory burdens on businesses allowing then to be more competitive, we need to control the growth in entitlements...

    If, after we do all of that and we still need to raise revenues I am open to the discussion. Until such time as Leviathan's profligate and wasteful spending is brought under control I simple must disagree with raising the tax rate on ANY INCOME bracket.

  8. JMJ said: "#1: The rich are not the "job creators."

    They aren't in the US where they are overtaxed (forcing them to move assets offshore) and discouraged from investing and hiring people.

    "#2 The rich do not supply that much of the demand with American jobs. The rich have been moving jobs overseas for years for cheap labor"

    As I said, the tax and other situation, including unions, encourages them to do this.

    "costing far, far more jobs than creating any."

    If you want to deal with job outsourcing, go protest at the local AFL-CIO office.

    "Always. We now have only a 22% industrial contribution to the GDP."

    Yes, the unions have been waging a successful war on this sector.

    "#3: The wealthier one is, the more risk averse he is."

    So? Most of the rich are barely millionaires. These are the "hungry" and risk averse.

    "That is why the fastest generator of jobs in recent history has been in the small business sector, and the rich have little share in that."

    Actually, they do. They have a MAJOR stake in it.

    "Ya' know, I could go on and on, but once again I am solidly, logically, truthfully, proving beyond that shadow of a doubt..."

    Actually, you are easily avoiding facts.

  9. dmarks,

    Once again your logic is flawless...and it leads right to a brick wall.

    Unions never represented more than 30% of the workforce and now they represent like 11% of the private sector workforce. With the passage of NAFTA the apparel industry went off shore with a vengence....and only 1% of the apparel industry work force was unionized.

    If we subtract the military industrial complex from our percentage of GDP that is manufacturing you probably end up with something like 4%.

    Of course the solution in your mind is to lower manufacturing costs to the same level as they are in China and then manufacturers would return to the USA. No they wouldn't because then the demand in the USA would be equal with China and they would just be better off in China because there are more of them.

    The reality is your logic is fine, but its time for us to realize that if labor has to compete with labor in China then so must the military....which means we need to cut our military budget down to the same level of GDP as China's and we need to cut military pay and benefits down to the level of China's.

    Then we can take our technology sector, our medical sector, and all of our accountants and lawyers down to the same level as their counterparts in China.

    Actually, Dmarks, the weathly do not have much stake in small business....its not very profitable for them.

  10. Tao: I admit, I am biased from being in Michigan, where I see unions destroy manufacturing workplaces right and left.

    Interesting point on the garment industry.

    "Actually, Dmarks, the weathly do not have much stake in small business....its not very profitable for them."

    Tax policies define small business owners as "Wealthy"

  11. Dmarks, one of the problems with your logic is that you equate ownership with shareholders. I know over 200 small business owners and right now they cannot figure out why they get rewarded to take money out of their companies via dividends and our capital gains with a 10% tax rate but they get no reward tax wise for reinvesting profits into more inventory and or more facilities.

    If we actually did reward growth and expansion then shareholders and Wall Street would be angry because they want those profits to themselves. Everyone wants to lower the taxes on dividends and capital gains and then claim that shareholders create jobs! Dividends and capital gains are the result of a company taking money AWAY from growth, expansion, and job creation.

    I think we should tax dividends as regular wages or income. Capital gains need a graduated scale for stocks held 10 years having the lowest tax rate down to the highest tax rate for for daytraders. Then the taxes should be deducted at the point of sale rather than waiting till the end of the year where investors can balance their gains with their losses.

    Nowadays there is a big difference between owners and investors and its time we realized that. Just look at Ford, which still has a family that has a stake in the company vs GM and or Crysler.

  12. In regards to unions...yes, with the automobile industry all around you it is easy to blame unions for everything that is wrong with the automobile industry...but that just hides the fact that you also have management and owners who are just as guilty as unions for destroying that industry.

    In apparel you had everyone run offshore after NAFTA, first to Mexico then to Honduras and now to Guatamala.....I have a friend whos family has been in apparel for almost 100years. They declared bankruptcy on their South Carolina operations and went to Mexico then moved to Honduaras. Now they have a big huge plant in Honduras with 1,500 employees and they are realising that they make less money now than they did when they had 500 employees in the USA. But there solution is to now look at moving to Guatemala or get the Honduran government to give them incentives to stay. The real issue for them is that their management in Honduras sucks! They can't hit a delivery date if they tried and they cannot follow a specification guide if their lives depended on it....but their employees do do good work.

    But they will end up moving to Guatemala so that they can cover up the cost of their piss poor management with lower cost labor. It never dawns on him to move to Honduras permenantly and run his company from the manufacturing floor....having placed two orders with him in the last year I won't do business with his company ever again, even though I think his employees make the best shirts I have ever seen. Great production doesn't cover up the fact that they used the wrong fabric on one order and had at least three different shades of every color and on the second order which I was promised would take no more than 2 months ended up taking 5 now his employees lose their jobs because I had to be given a big discount to take the goods that his management screwed up so bad....

  13. Completely unrelated:

    dmarks! I was raised in Kalamazoo. Left MI in 1986 and never looked back. I would love to one day return, because Michigan truly is beautiful in some places, but until the economy there heals...

    Sorry for this completely unrelated intrusion. Go Blue!

    Donald in Bethel, CT


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 3/4/18 Anonymous commenting has been disabled and this site has reverted to comment moderation. This unfortunate action is necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or irrelevant to the post subject.

While we appreciate and encourage all political viewpoints we feel no obligation to post comments that fail to rise to the standards of decency and decorum we have set for Rational Nation USA.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.