Comments on: J-O-B-S or T-A-X-E-S: We Can't Have Both

By: Mark Simpson

Mark Simpson — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:05:41 +0000

Am I the only one that seems to notice that as the unions demanded more wages and benefits, and the Congress places more tax burdens on business, more jobs go overseas. People start a business to earn a profit, not to support workers. That is simply a byproduct of making a profit. If you can make much more money by moving to another state, I believe most of you would move. If a business can make a better profit by moving to a place that doesn’t seem to hate them, then I say move! This country needs to wise up, and look at the simple economics of business. If the government taxes you more, you have less money to spend. If employees keep demanding more, eventually the well runs dry. Look at what is happening to GM. Their employee costs are putting them out of business. The only thing a business owes their employees is a check in exchange for work. They don’t even owe you a job! Everything beyond that is a gift!

By: Mike P

Mike P — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:08:24 +0000

Wayne S – backwards economics to save the wealth of the wealthy? Was your MBA in Communist Finance? Why is it such a crime for someone to create wealth? They take all the risk, and assume all of the reward. Or lose it all. And pay taxes on their wealth.
When I know people who won’t find a better paying job because they qualify for state assistance to supplement their $6 an hour job – and there is no incentive to work more because they’d lose their handout, what does that say? I have much more respect for people that have fought tooth and nail to make it big. Why don’t you go read T. Boone Pickens book? He was born near dirt poor and made it on his own. No silver spoon. And no government assistance.

By: chris

chris — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:58:47 +0000

New business alwas evaluates the profitability of a new venture. Part of this evaluation includes taxes. If the corporation built in a neighboring town which offered better tax incentives, then the neighboring town gets the jobs and subsequent boost to its economy and tax revenues. Its so simple…and we have millions of examples, why the protax crowd refuse to see them is mind boggling.

By: Mike P

Mike P — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:52:39 +0000

I worked for seven years for a company that hired Contract Labor for medical records processing from home. When I approached the contractors about working more hours because they hadn’t approached 40 hours in a week, to a man, they all declined claiming that they would be pushed to a higher tax bracket and there was no incentive to work more, because the government would take a higher percentage of their income away. So it’s not just “small businesses” that feel the pinch. It’s the individual self-employed people who are aware of the tax structure and the ceiling they do not wish to break through. Lowering taxes not only helps small businesses retain income for spending, but also helps individuals recoup more of their contract money – allowing them to work more and not feel like they are being cheated. This would have a trickle down effect where the businesses and individuals would have more to spend or invest.

By: Blake

Blake — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:14:55 +0000

This is all we need to focus on in my opinion:

“…income tax rates of 36 percent to 33 percent and 39.6 percent to 35 percent. Then…..”

What the heck is wrong with us? We should already have thrown all of these bums out of office! We are giving a USELESS government this kind of money to squander? Give it to the crack heads in the inner city?

We need a revolution. A big one.

By: Suzan

Suzan — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:01:10 +0000

I would like to comment on Kevin’s response. His argument works fine as long as demand for the product or service that the business is selling is stable or increasing, but this doesn’t work where the demand for the product or service decreases. It may be fine to say that the owner will always hire when his profits will increase by hiring the new worker, but if the demand for his product or service is in a decline and he can’t make the sales, he won’t hire that new worker. In this ecomony, consumers are tightening up and not as willing to spend on “extras”, so unless the product or service in question is a necessity, this won’t necessarily work. Look at the auto industry, for example. You see constriction and consolidation occuring – why, because no one is selling cars. Consumers aren’t buying the cars. This should be taken into consideration.

By: Wayne S

Wayne S — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 13:01:00 +0000

What makes you think Barack Obama and his handlers want to create jobs? Having grown up in Chicago, the game is simple:
- Tax the heck out of business and the rich to support vote getting and government jobs (The only day you are required to work is election day).
- When business leaves, double up on the existing business to support the new government jobs.
- Any business or citizen gets out of line: Red tag their building, dig up their lawn (happened to my 70 year old Mom for complaining about taxes), etc.

When you reach 50% people dependent on the government, you can’t lose an election. Why would Obama want to create now jobs in his “57 states” during his “10 year term?”

By: The I

The I — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 08:16:30 +0000

This fallacy of linking taxes to job creation is merely a ploy to lure the uneducated. Businesses assess risk and profitability in a forward view. That is, what is my return if I invest this amount of money into a project. They also assess their after tax profits in this analysis. Businesses do not create jobs based on what they have as residual income. For instance, if a company can borrow at 8% and have a return of 19%, wouldn’t that company not borrow to make the profit? Does it matter how much money was left over from the previous year after taxes? I have an MBA in a Finance. So these guy can throw out these lower taxes equals job growth equations, but then I can say I can see why the economy is in such shambles also. Completely backwards economics to preserve the wealth of the wealthy.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:59:18 +0000

I fail to see the “incentive to hire fewer workers” by an increase of small business owners income taxes from 33% to 36%. A small business would of course rather have the lower tax rate, we all would. But I don’t believe it reasonable to say a small business owner who grosses say a million per year and nets $200,000 views the tax increase as an incentive to hire fewer workers. I’m a CPA, and I know business owners try to maximize profits. A business will hire a worker who will produce a pretax profit through his production.

A business owner does not decide that he used to make about $30,000 profit by hiring another electrician or plumber, but now since the tax hike he makes 3% less or only $29,100 extra profit. So does he think that is so much less it’s not worth it? I don’t think so.

If a business can make more profit, they will add a worker. Taxes are on profits, not on the number of workers you have on your payroll. There is no disincentive here.

If a worker adds enough productivity to increase your pretax income, he will add to your after tax income.

By: susan b.

susan b. — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:51:57 +0000

The flat tax, fair tax, consumption tax, whatever you want to call it is the only way to go… Huckabee had it right. But then I guess we would have to worry about all those folks that work at the IRS being unemployed, I’m sure we would all lose sleep over that!