[southernmissouri2007]

Can anyone refute or debunk this Liberal claim that a higher personal income tax means more Jobs because the businesses owners will invest to avoid higher income taxes can anyone disprove this ?

What Conservatives Won’t Tell You: Higher Taxes Equal Reinvestment And Jobs

By Ray Medeiros

What the conservatives do not know or don’t reveal is, higher taxes make businesses re-invest most of their profits into the corporation.

This is one of the reasons President Clinton had a booming economy. He raised taxes on the wealthy. Rather than pay the higher tax rate by extracting profits for personal use and having it sit on the sidelines, they re-invested it, creating a chain reaction of jobs.

What we are seeing today is lower taxes leading to owners extracting money rather than reinvesting it. The cash sits on the sidelines in bank accounts, or in their wallets. So let’s raise taxes, and “force” this idle cash back into businesses for reinvestment and create the jobs this country needs.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/higher-taxes-jobs

[Meta777]

If you had a choice between putting an extra $50 in your pocket while paying $50 in taxes,
or investing $100 dollars into your business which after a certain amount of time
would turn into more than the $100 you started with for you to decide on what to do with at a latter time.
And if you knew you didn't need to have that $50 in your pocket anytime soon,
What would you choose to do with the money, and why?

-Meta

[southernmissouri2007]

I would think I would want to hire Workers so I can get a reward which is money therefor I would pocket the money also what is the incentive to hire is you are getting a smaller pay check ?

[Meta777]

I would think I would want to hire Workers so I can get a reward which is money therefor I would pocket the money

Wait, so you're saying you would want to use the money to hire more workers,
but instead of just using it to hire more workers, you would pocket it?
Am I reading what you wrote the right way?

also what is the incentive to hire if you are getting a smaller pay check ?

I would say there's not much incentive to hire somebody if it means that you get less money.
This is why there is a limit to the number of people a single company would be willing to employ.

-Meta

[southernmissouri2007]

Thank you for replying anyway what I meant was I would hire if I owned a Company if I got a bigger pay check meaning lower taxes/tax cuts/tax breaks let me ask you a question if that is ok with you are you saying you agree with me that there is not much incentive for a business owner to hire Workers if the Owners are taking home less pay less personal income for themselves I think Business Owners want to have and keep a standard of living if you are keeping money inside your Company to avoid less personal income taxes and writting yourself/paying yourself a smaller paycheck less money to avoid higher personal income taxes what is the incentive to hire would you agree thanks for your reply ?

[Meta777]

Thank you for replying anyway what I meant was I would hire if I owned a Company if I got a bigger pay check

So you would hire if hiring meant you would make more money?

meaning lower taxes/tax cuts/tax breaks

The issue of taxes' affect on hiring is actually separate from whether a business owner would hire someone under a given tax system,
and I feel it should be addressed separately.

I think that what you are trying to say is that business owners would have more incentive to hire if their income was taxed less.
But I don't see the reasoning for that conclusion.
Business owners typically hire people so that they can make more money.
Now whether their income is taxed more or less does not change that incentive as long as they aren't being taxed at 100%.
Certainly business owners would benefit more from being taxed less,
but the tax rate is irrelevant when it comes to incentive.
If a business owner can make more money by hiring someone,
then that someone will be hired, regardless of how much the business owner is taxed.

...are you saying you agree with me that there is not much incentive for a business owner to hire Workers if the Owners are taking home less pay less personal income for themselves

What I'm saying is that if in hiring someone the owner will ultimately end up with less money, then there is less incentive to hire.
I am not saying that a smaller pay check for the owner in general, means less incentive for them to hire.
Only if the hiring of the employe causes the loss in profit do I view that as an incentive not to hire.

I think Business Owners want to have and keep a standard of living if you are keeping money inside your Company to avoid less personal income taxes and writting yourself/paying yourself a smaller paycheck less money what is the incentive to hire would you agree

Well first, I would say that there is a difference between investing money in your company and storing it in corporate accounts.
If you are storing most of your money in a corporate account, then taxes have less effect, opposed to pocketing it all at once,
though as you said, they are going to want to pull some out in order to provide themselves with a certain standard of living.
Higher income taxes may be more incentive to store profits in corporate accounts rather than pocketing it.
Certainly, business owners do want to keep a certain standard of living, but so do the employees.
If you are instead truly investing the money into your business,
then you are not keeping it in a corporate account,
and investing goes hand-in-hand with hiring.

thanks for your reply ?

No problem.

-Meta

[Oxymoron]

all it does is create more creative tax fraud or evasion.

[Dr House]

Can anyone refute or debunk this Liberal claim that a higher personal income tax means more Jobs because the businesses owners will invest to avoid higher income taxes can anyone disprove this ?

It's absurd on its face. Tax deductions do not provide greater savings than the amount invested, and only cover small business owners -- greatly offset by the amount salaried employees can invest in businesses not of their ownership -- which isn't covered by current tax laws.

[Meta777]

Tax deductions do not provide greater savings than the amount invested

It is difficult for me to understand the message you are trying to convey because of the way its worded,
but are you trying to say here that investments, under the current U.S. tax system,
do not yeild returns that are greater than the amount invested?

The whole purpose of investment in a capitalist system is to yeild greater returns,
so if that's what you're really saying, and if what you're saying is true,
then why on earth would any self-respecting capitalist invest?

That's obviously a rhetorical question, because people do invest, and despite the tax system, investors do make profits.
I think I must have misread what you posted there, because that couldn't possibly be what you meant to say....

[Tax deductions] only cover small business owners

Again, I might just be confused by the organization of your words, but is this what you meant to say here?
If so what proof do you have to support that statement?

If what I think you're saying is true,
then how do explain that some of the most successful/largest corporations pay 0 in taxes?
And how is it that many other large (non-small businesses) also pay a much smaller ETF than the marginal rate?

[Tax deductions are] greatly offset by the amount salaried employees can invest in businesses not of their ownership -- which isn't covered by current tax laws.

What are you trying to say here?
Can you elaborate?

all it does is create more creative tax fraud or evasion.

How is that an answer to the OP's question?
The OP asked you to prove that a higher income tax rate does not provide an incentive to business owners to hire people,
and all you've done is state that higher rates do not do anything at all other than make people not want to pay them and try to avoid them,
but you haven't provided any evidence or reasoning to support that claim.
If what you say is true, then why do we even have taxes?

You seem to forget, and I forgot to mention earlier, that taxes do have a purpose,
and that purpose is not to act as an incentive for business owners to hire people.
Do you truly believe that taxes are meant to serve no other purpose,
or do you simply think they fail at the service they were meant to provide?
Please let me know, I'm interested to know your answer on this.

-Meta

[Dr House]

To clarify, I meant tax deductions for business expenses. Tax deductions for individual investment (such as in assets) are relatively minimal, and limited to stuff like retirement plans.

[southernmissouri2007]

I agree with some of what your saying I just think lower taxes means there is more incentive to hire because you get to keep more of your money and fund your standard of living and you have more money to hire new Workers with also if you were writting yourself a smaller paycheck would you still want to hire ?

[Meta777]

To clarify, I meant tax deductions for business expenses.

What did you mean to say about them?

I agree with some of what your saying I just think lower taxes means there is more incentive to hire because you get to keep more of your money and fund your standard of living and you have more money to hire new Workers with

Well, if hiring more workers means you pay fewer taxes for whatever reason, then I would agree.

also if you were writting yourself a smaller paycheck would you still want to hire ?

If it meant that I would ultimately get more money in the long run, then yes.

-Meta

[southernmissouri2007]

Could you please explain how that works how does a smaller paycheck to avoid higher income taxes means to get more to make and get more money in the long run thanks ?

[Meta777]

Could you please explain how that works?
How can giving yourself a smaller paycheck, in order to avoid higher income taxes,
mean that you get more money in the long run? Thanks.

Well that isn't exactly what I said,
or at least it wasn't how I meant to answer your last question.

also if you were writting yourself a smaller paycheck would you still want to hire ?

What I mean to say was that
If hiring someone meant that I would ultimately get more money in the long run, then yes, I would probably hire that person.

But I will try to answer your new question anyway,
How can giving yourself a smaller paycheck, increase the amount of money you make?
That's easy, if you invest part of what would be your paycheck into something that is profitable,
then you will get back more than what that portion of your paycheck was worth.
That is the definition of profits.

-Meta

[southernmissouri2007]

With a bigger paycheck you could hire more Workers right ?

[Modernjan]

"What the conservatives do not know or don’t reveal is, higher taxes make businesses re-invest most of their profits into the corporation."

I think this is just as much voodoo economics as that trickle down BS. From 0% through 99% taxation, investing would always be better than pocketing money right away, in the long run (provided your business doesn't go under) and at 100% taxation both are equally crappy options. So you should invest no matter what the tax rate is. The absolute amount of profit from investing vs. pocketing right away would actually decrease with higer tax rates, although the relative amount would remain the same.

I don't see how it would work and there are far better arguments for higher taxes on the rich anyway.

[Modernjan]

With a bigger paycheck you could hire more Workers right ?

If you're already making $1 billion in profits an extra $200 million won't have you thinking "yes, now I can finally afford to hire more workers". If you couldn't meet demand for your product you would have hired those people using your $1 billion profit anyway (and you may have hired them in China), if you are meeting demand you won't hire workers even with your $1.2 billion profit.

Many people have this feeling that demand is surging but corporations are to poor to hire, the opposite is true: corporations make record profits and sit on trillions while demand has stagnated or even decreased (because people lost their jobs for example). In such a situation it makes much more sense to give a little extra to the poor and middle class because that will reignite demand.

[Meta777]

With a bigger paycheck you could hire more Workers right ?

If you hire more workers, you are investing in your company, no?

Giving yourself a bigger personal paycheck so that you can take that money and hire more workers is exactly the same as
hiring more workers instead of giving yourself a bigger paycheck.

So, your last question does not really make sense to me.

-Meta

[Social_Critic]

First, I want to clarify that everything I say is subject to change because the law changes, and the darned system is so chaotic, dynamic, and hard to figure out I can't really say for sure I know what I'm talking about.

But what I can say is that I have been in charge of putting together very very large investment projects within a large multinational, and nowadays I'm a consultant for companies foolish enough to hire me to give them my five cent's worth. Guys, when these companies do look at the numbers, the tax regime does come into play - the higher the taxes the less likely we would invest in a given country. Some companies, if the investment is large enough and the country or state is known to be flexible, will then approach the government and try to get tax relief - I think this is one reason why South Carolina has been able to get more investment, for example.

But taxes aren't the only thing we look at. Labor skills and cost are important. And of course there's the legal regime - the less corruption, and more efficient the legal system, the less hassles, and this is very important. And of course, there's also the one issue I was always pointing out to management - governments tend to be fickle, and change their taxes, raising them when they feel they have to, which really screws you if you put your money in expecting XX % and then the bastards, 5 years later, increased your taxes.

So, given the way I have been prone to think about this over the years, I'd say it's better not to increase taxes because people tend to distrust a country where the taxes go up. It's also not intelligent to LOWER them because then you may have to raise them later. What seems to me is more useful is to keep the labor regulations sane (not like say in Spain or Venezuela), avoid corruption, make sure the ports move cargo fast and the customs systems work, keep crime down, train kids so they can be trained to work hard, and keep changes (including environmental regulations) to a minimum, because the big guys really hate to have things change when they are investing a ton of money. So you can be as tough as you want, but for god's sake don't rock the boat too much. We really don't like to see volatility, what we like is to see things steady as she goes, make money, stash it away, and keep on dreaming ways to make more money. And in the end, if the system is tuned properly, that generates a ton of jobs - ask the Germans how they do it, it works very well for them.

[jimjam]

To clarify

Hey Doc, i see you have 23,082 posts and you are a "student", very cool