http://blog.cleveland.com/letters/2008/10/employers_will_cut_jobs_to_off.htmlWhy, Oh dear God WHY do they keep repeating this stupid and nonsensical talking point?
Barack Obama claims that he intends to increase income taxes only on those who earn more than $250,000 per year. But the question is not how many of us earn more than $250,000; it's how many of us work for somebody who makes more than $250,000. I do.
It is pretty simple. If you tax wage payers, they will reduce their labor forces to offset the increase in their tax bill. Obama may not realize that, but many in the middle class had better learn it quickly.
Another politician from Illinois, Abe Lincoln, had it right: "You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer."
Soaking the rich does not help the poor, or the economy. In fact, it probably will hurt both.
Tom Boutall
Strongsville STRONGSVILLE??? AH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAAAAAA. One of Clevo's richest suburbs. I'm guessing he was one of the 28%ers at the much-publicized McCain/Palin rally of the victim Republican suburban whiteys last week. I wonder if he's married to either the "hot chicks for McCain" or the batshit floating-eyed blond woman who vomited talking points like she was hung over?
SIIIIIGGGGHHHHH. Clinton years (higher corporate tax rates) vs Bewsh years (lower corporate tax rates). You. EPIC. FAILED.
I also, of course, wrote a response to this. Admittedly, it was thrown together from mine and several DUer's ideas from past threads (thanks TahitiNut, LydiaLeftcoast, TheWraith, etc):
I'm guessing Tom Boutall (Oct 17th) has never taken a macro/micro econ course or read up on GAAP, but that never stops him or anyone else on the right from repeating the same "Tax the corporations and it affects all of us. They'll raise their prices to cover their costs!" mantra.
I don't understand how a higher tax rate on profits causes reductions in jobs or a rise in prices. They seem to have this notion that businesses are taxed as individuals are and it's simply not true. Corporations are taxed on profits, not expenses. Last I checked, taxes were for maintenance, not prosperity. The ONLY relationship between employee compensation and income taxes is that income taxes are reduced when a business pays more in employee compensation (and therefore has less taxable profits).
The upper 5% of wealth are doing no worse now than they did back when the top income tax rate was 90%. Any robust economy is driven by a middle/working class that's gainfully employed (like, for instance, the middle part of the Clinton years). When corporate tax rates are lower, businesses feel no great need to hire, thus creating large profits and cash stores but a "jobless recovery" in the process (like, for instance, the Bush years).
If the tax rate on business profits is reduced, HOW does that effect the number of people hired? It doesn't. History and current events put the lie to this talking point. Thanks to Bush's tax breaks for the wealthy, corporations are enjoying their lowest tax rates in quite a while, yet the period from 2001-2008 yielded a pathetic average of 49 thousand jobs created per month, including 10 straight months of job losses in 2008. That's even worse than George HW Bush's presidency and falls well short of the 130-150 thousand jobs needed every month to accommodate incoming-outgoing workers.
Plus corporations can only charge what the public is willing to pay. DVD players aren't going to soar to $400 because corporate tax rates are raised slightly. The laws of supply and demand still figure in.Let's hope the paper prints it on Sunday. You can also respond to his idiocy at the link above.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
