Best
212 Comments
Post
  • #6
    !
    No. As a General Contractor I have a bottom line.

    I can currently afford to employ 9 full time men. Seven of those men are married and have families that are dependent on their income.

    If you increase my taxes enough and force me to pay higher premiums for health insurance I have to calculate that into the bottom line.

    You can only swallow so much cost and you can only pass on so much to the customer.

    My business is a microcosm of the cause and effect relationship. Big businesses and wealthy employers have to make the same decisions and cuts based on Government intervention.
  • #16
    !
    The problem with your argument is that if you employ only 9 full time men, then you are not really in the economic class that this article addresses, you are a small business.
  • #33
    !
    @Dan_Tien That's funny, because Emperor Nero Obama believes that any business making over $250k a year should fall into this tax catagory.
  • #43
    !
    @No_Bama What is funny is that people who are basically "small potatoes" think that they are in the same class as international movers and shakers because they make $250k a year. That's about 251 times less than Warren Buffet says he made in taxable income in 2010, on which he paid a tax rate of 17.4%.
  • R Load more replies

  • #26
    !
    This man is an "armchair economist" for a reason. He has no grasp of real economics. In fact there is plenty of evidence to show that lowering taxes on the rich increases the flow of revenue to the government. It would do him, and other readers here to read Arthur Laffer, Milton Friedman, Ludwig Von Mises, Friedrich Hayek. Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics. Economics and aerodynamics have nothing to do with each other. Keynesian economics has been thoroughly discredited, in fact Keynes himself expressed doubts about this theory before his death. Yet liberals cling to it.
  • #14
    !
    We have seen the results when arm chair economists who prognosticate about what will help our economy are proven to be wrong, over and over. Lower corporate taxes and stop the insane government spending and stand back and watch this economy explode.
  • #19
    !
    The economy really exploded after the Bush tax cuts didn't it? We'll be cleaning up that mess for a decade and a half.
  • #9
    !
    This is the most asinine post I have read in a long time. You take tax rates rather than the real taxes paid and make sweeping generalizations. You ignore factors such as the total elimination of all interest deductions except for mortgages and numerous other loopholes that were closed during the Reagan years. Your simplify the economy to tax rates ignoring all other factors that influence the economy and finally you select a timeline that fits your conclusions without any real reference to logical economic cycles. Not worth the virtual paper it was written on!
  • #7
    !
    Nope, higher taxes on the wealthy means less prosperity for everyone. With the exception of certain corporations that can afford the tax breaks being taken away (i.e. Facebook and GE come to mind). But you could tax the rich at 100% and it wouldn't solve the financial problem we're in. The best solution? Government should butt out and let the free markets work.
  • #32
    !
    You do know that "the free market" isn't static, right? In a true free market, winners in a particular niche acquire money and power that lets them take over another niche -- and that process repeats and snowballs till you have a handful of all-powerful merchant princes ruling the world. To be perfectly honest, even though our nation attempts to keep the free market in check so that doesn't happen, it probably already has.
  • #95
    !
    @Zazziness The right wingnuts love to quote Adam Smith and his "invisible hand" theory, which was discredited over 50 years ago and no sane economist would refer to it now because of its level of naïveté. These same wingnuts disparage a college education, but if they bother to stay awake through micro and macroeconomics, they might have a lightbulb moment and finally understand why the "free market" is rife with corruption and the opportunity for further corruption.
  • #5
    !
    Kudos to Politix for this well reasoned and well written article. Mr. Garret speaks strong truth. The best way to stimulate the economy is to stimulate demand. The best way to do that is to put more money into the hands of those who will put it back into the economy - the poor and middle class.
  • #23
    !
    No... simply put those that we call wealth are that way because they run companies or supplies goods and services... When you increase taxes on such the tax is covered in the price increases of those goods and services which are paid by the general populace..... If such taxes are included in the price of products it may become non competitive to other sources of those good and services and the company then will either get out of the business with the loss of all jobs provided, reduce the labor force to maintain price points or reduce pay and benefits to the employees to maintain price point....

    We see this already in the market such as Union companies that require reductions in pay and wages when taxes and costs go up, lately in companies dropping spouses from employee insurance polices because of increase medical tax costs and companies closing their doors because taxes, wages and benefit costs make their products and services non competitive....
  • #65
    !
    Wrong.

    If you increase taxes on high income earners and a rise in the price of their goods and services happens, one of two things will happen:

    1) You were running your business inefficiently before the tax and not maximizing profit, the tax just helped you maximize that profit. Not very likely since the goal of business is to always maximize profit.

    2) You were already maximizing profit before the tax, so when you increase the price of the product you lower the demand and make LESS profit than you did before, so not only would you be hit with the tax, you would be making less profit to boot.
  • #81
    !
    @AceLuby .. Wrong... If you raise taxes on high income earners poor people pay those taxes as they are added to each gal of milk, each eye brow pencil, each pound of sugar ect. bought.... Or, you cost the Workers in reduction of pay, benefits or jobs...

    The Biz world is full of example of this... Even the Idiotic Cash for clunkers program demonstrates the cause & effect aspect.... The Tax and Regulation requirements of Obama care policies are now being off set by dropping spouses and or dropping coverage altogether....
  • #97
    !
    @Quantummist Did you even read what I posted? If you raise prices and it increases profit it means that the business was running inefficiently in the first place. Most businesses will not fall into this category because every business strives to maximize profit by selecting a price that will do so based on the supply and demand for that product.

    If you raise prices when the price is already maximizing profitability (as most do), you will lose profit.

    Those are the only two things that could happen from a business leader's perspective. Since most will not want to lose profit, most will not raise prices. Those that do will lose business to those that don't, shifting that profit to other companies.
  • #3
    !
    I I didn't see much in this article about the concept of fairness. When a pro golfer has to move from Cal. to Fla. to escape a 64% tax, there is something inherently wrong with this "tax the wealthy scheme."
  • #13
    !
    First of all he hasn't moved, second he apologized for running his mouth and third let him move. It's free country after all isn't it?
  • #17
    !
    @jessejaymes Tiger Woods moved and more importantly, businesses are leaving the confiscatory tax rates in Cal. by the droves.
  • #54
    !
    @earl The only tax he is avoiding is property tax by moving and people have been leaving CA in droves since the 80's.
  • #64
    !
    @AceLuby Everything is taxed in Cal., not just property. The fact remains that companies and the wealthy will leave a state that has confiscatory taxes.
  • #68
    !
    @earl Any money a golfer makes in CA he would still make there and there are sales taxes in 45/50 states. By moving, but still making money in the same way, he would not be avoiding any taxes, just some of the state specific ones like the CA sales and property taxes... and instead pay FL sales and property taxes.
  • R Load more replies

  • #158
    !
    too bad when you tax the rich, they just pass it on to consumers, which takes money out of the middle classes pocket and puts it in the feds pocket to be doled out to the ghettos of America!
  • #157
    !
    If we were really concerned about jobs we'd base our taxes on the creation of jobs. Create more jobs (AMERICAN jobs not overseas jobs) get more tax write-offs.
  • #148
    !
    Wrong. Equal taxes for everyone is the only answer. A simple strait forward tax code written on one page is all that is needed. Anything more just gives the lawyers something to fight over.
  • #143
    !
    Gee wizz..... I never considered calling a "Software Engineer" for investment or even economics advice. This guy made his fortune taking advantage of the very concept he's not warning us against. I guess he got his and the rest of the world can just do without.

    This is a silly choice of guest commentator, perhaps next we'll get the inventor of the Barbie Doll to tell us all about the future of manned space flight..... ever hear of QUALIFICATIONS?
  • #146
    !
    Not having qualifications never stopped *me* from giving advice, but if you don't have qualifications you better have facts, and not cherry-picked facts either.
  • #71
    !
    After WW1 we had considerable economic prosperity called the "Roaring 20s." Of note, we had "automobiles, telephones, motion pictures, and electricity, unprecedented industrial growth, accelerated consumer demand and aspirations, and significant changes in lifestyle and culture." - wiki I don't know why the author chose that time period, but if radically lowering the top tax rate on the rich causes those problems, let's do it again.

    What makes this painful, is the sense of loss due to government restrictions. If the equestrian lobby was present today, could we start the automobile industry? Would today's telegram lobby choke off the telephone? How much unprecedented industrial growth could today's all powerful EPA tolerate? What powerful lobbies today are choking tomorrow's businesses?

    Yes, we need to look into causes for "The Great Depression" and the recession of the early 1980's, but I don't think it was from pulling up. I'd like to say it's because the left rudder pedal was stuck, but that's just as simplistic and wrong as the author's main point in this article and I wouldn't want to peddle platitudes.
  • #67
    !
    So high taxes = jobs? Never in the history of the planet has removing money from a capitalist economy kick-started it. He uses weak logic and a mere two examples that he believes contribute to a proven fact. Let's look at the current situation. Low taxes did not cause this recession, poor government policy, idiotic borrowers, and greedy lenders did. None of these are from low taxes. Our government pressured and forced national lenders to lower lending standards, in turn for better capitalization from Fannie/Freddie. The government, in turn looked the other way when it came to regulating these. The greedy lenders took advantage of this massive cash intake and went along with it. People who could never afford homes, willingly allowed themselves to take out mortgages on houses they couldn't afford long-term under the idea fed them that the economy was improving so they'd come up with magic money to pay bills. This was all so damaging. But never in this equation was the tax rate an issue. What was an issue was out-of-control government growth and spending.

    I might be for raising taxes if the government could prove efficient usage of the money. But they can't so I'm not.
  • #60
    !
    He is going to crash his plane. This economy is slowed down not by lower taxes. It's the uncertainty of Obamacare. And I have to make a certain level of profit to stay in business. The recent tax increase cut into that. Not knowing what coming with Obamacare is keeping me from investing in equipment and hiring. If taxes go up more it will be to my advantage to simply shut down. And live off capital gains. From investing. Over regulation and rising diesel prices are not helping. But I can pass those costs to my customers to an extent.
    What I'm afraid of is companies are learning to make profits with less employees. I have in the past helped employees get started in owning their own business. And partnering with them it's been a good deal for both of us. But today I would not do it. They couldn't ever be profitable. To many regulations and taxes to give them any breathing room. I know I couldn't do today what I did when we started out. It just seems that there are to many obstacles keeping a small business from ever getting started.
    If the rich don't create jobs the government doesn't create jobs either. And building a false economy by using stimulus plans isn't working that doesn't leave much chance to build demand.
  • #57
    !
    no, it is crap. sure, when you seize money from someone earning it and give portions to people not earning it, that makes the non-earners more prosperous. since there is no incentive for non-earners to work, they will not return to work. it is then only a matter of time until the earners run out.
  • R Load more comments...
Post