If you'd tax me more, I'd hire more people - as a small business owner

[Ralph Wiggum]

BR_Parkway  (1000+ posts)        Mon Aug-01-11 07:25 PM
Original message
If you'd tax me more, I'd hire more people - as a small business owner

(and the same would apply to any major corporation) if my taxes were raised by a sufficient amount, then I may as well hire more people to do more of the stuff around the office.

If my taxes were raised $30,000 a year (not very likely in my income bracket, but just for an example) then I won't have the money in my pocket. I may as well make my life easier (and save some money) by hiring someone for that money and have them do more work that I could make money off off. Additionally, since the $30K is now deductible from my income, I may actually wind up paying less in taxes since they're based on the profit the business earns. And if all the wealthy are hiring, more people have more money to buy more of whatever product I make.

It's the simple reason that employment goes up in higher tax periods and drops every time we give the "job creators" tax cuts. Even my grandmother gets this concept, and she worked at home her whole life. But somehow these brilliant economists consistently can't get their heads around it.

This moron can't possibly own a business, and if he/she/it does, it has to be failing.

LonePirate  (619 posts)      Mon Aug-01-11 07:31 PM
Response to Original message
3. We need a smart Dem in DC to start trumpeting this scenario. Tax the corps until they start hiring.

TheKentuckian  (1000+ posts)        Mon Aug-01-11 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
6. Some actual sense and understanding of the actual dynamics in play
 in a digestible and relatable form.

Thank you! I wish this would get a 100 thousand recs.

eridani  (1000+ posts)        Tue Aug-02-11 02:47 AM
Response to Original message
10. And the taxes could be used to hire people to do infrastructure repair and
 --other public goods. The people who got hired would then be able to become your customers again.

I'm amazed that these people are smart enough to breathe.

One person gets it:

robcon  (1000+ posts)      Tue Aug-02-11 08:15 AM
Response to Original message
14. Stupidity of this thread is amazing.
 People only hire if they will make more money when they add people.

Econ 101 would be your friend.

BR_Parkway  (1000+ posts)        Wed Aug-03-11 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. If the choice came down to paying it in taxes or paying the same to add
 someone to either make my life easier as an employer or add to the business bottom line - then any business owner is going to spend the money on adding someone

It's all in how the tax codes are written, especially the ones now that don't disfavor companies adding workers over seas

Econ 101 - you'd get an F, Civics a D-

Imajika (1000+ posts)        Tue Aug-02-11 08:24 AM
Response to Original message
15. You know your free to pay more taxes all on your own right?
 There is absolutely nothing stopping you from paying whatever additional amount of taxes that you wish. You can even specifically write a check to pay down the deficit - just make it out to the Bureau of the Public Debt. There is nothing stopping you from over paying, in fact you have several options to do so.

tblue37  (1000+ posts)      Tue Aug-02-11 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
17. And if your business involves selling some product or service
 Edited on Tue Aug-02-11 04:23 PM by tblue37
to customers, then the fact that more people are employed and making enough money to purchase goods and services means that business will probably improve. Also, with more revenue, the government could improve infrastructure. Besides, if the government borrows less to meet its obligations, then interest rates go down.

And if more people can make an honest living, then those people, too, end up paying taxes rather than relying on the social safety net (what is left of it), so that simultaneously increases government revenue and reduces government expenditures as well.

Furthermore, with more people able to make a decent living honestly, crime goes down, which shows up in all sorts of ways in savings for businesses, not to mention just making life in this society more pleasant all around.

Win-win-win-win-win-win-win. . . .

But the real problem is related to the tragedy of the commons. The wealthy and powerful think only in the short-term, so all they care about is paying less in taxes right now, not in the long-term benefits to paying their fair share (benefits for themselves, for others, and for society as a whole).

One other major factor, of course, is embodied in the statement by the corrupt businessman villain (played by Robert Culp) in Superman III: "It is not enough that I win--everyone else must lose!"

[delilahmused]

I just lost brain cells reading that.

Cindie

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Salary = cost

tax = cost

If I paid a $30,000/yr salary I'm out $30k and I do so not because it makes my life easier but because my business will suffer if I do not, i.e. poor service will create a loss of revenue greater than $30k.

But if I sit on $30k and the government taxes me at 30% I'm out $9k which still leaves me $21k to spend on guns, drugs and hookers and I'm spending the weekend at Charlie Sheen's house.

If you tax me at 60% that's $18k out of my pocket but I still have $12k for a night at the Kennedy's.

Of course, taxes on everyone else means my CUSTOMERS have less money to throw my way so I'm not hiring people because there isn't enough demand.

[BlueStateSaint]

I just lost brain cells reading that.

Cindie

Yeah--me too.  I could feel this going on:

 

[Erasmus]

It's the higher math that confuses them.  Having to mutiply, subtract, add, and then compare results of other calculations doesn't come naturally to liberals.  I'm almost positive that Timothy Geithner had this same problem when calculating his taxes owed.

[Happy Fun Ball]

$30,000? Why not just tax every business with at least 1 employee 100% of their value, not just the profits? Just take it all. Everything. Then, according to your post, unemployment will dip down to 0.6%, the economy would be growing by double digits for decades to come, your lifelong obsession dream of having those "filthy kulaks" suffer would finally come to pass, and America would be the utopia you always wanted. Right?


Right?

[GOBUCKS]

The Briley Parkway DUmmy doesn't have a shot at DOTY, but this post puts him in the running for stupidest post of 2011.

This is the most astoundingly numbskull abuse of arithmetic we've seen in a long, long time.

[JohnnyReb]

If brains were trains, the DUmmies would have one of those hand pumped Dinky Car.

[Karin]

Somebody tried to patiently walk to lunatics through the math, much as SSB did, and here is how he responded:

BR_Parkway  (1000+ posts)        Tue Aug-02-11 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. You're joining 2 different things - If my taxes go up (not talking about the rate here)
 by 30K..... yes, I was trying to say it simply without tons of complicated examples and all - As democrats should have learned by now, the general public doesn't 'get' nuance or heavy thinking very well  

and

WCGreen  (1000+ posts)        Wed Aug-03-11 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
19. Wow, I posted this exact same thing a few days ago......
 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...  

Link that works

WCGreen then claimed to be an accountant. 

[Ralph Wiggum]

Yeah--me too.  I could feel this going on:

 

I also think the people who gave this thread 37 Recommendations should be immediately sent to a psychiatric facility.

[Erasmus]

"As democrats should have learned by now, the general public doesn't 'get' nuance or heavy thinking very well..."

Thank God for public schools!  All the heavy thinking involved in that math problem would probably stump most UC Berkeley professors.

[JohnnyReb]

"As democrats should have learned by now, the general public doesn't 'get' nuance or heavy thinking very well..."

Thank God for public schools!  All the heavy thinking involved in that math problem would probably stump most UC Berkeley professors.

Well damn, just damn, a bit of truth. They admit they're DUmb.

[Celtic Rose]

Okay DUmmies, lets break this down here.  Since you are using $30,000 as your number, let go with that.  Your company has a profit of $100,000, and you are taxed 30% on that profit, i.e. $30,000 dollars.  If you hire a new employee with that $30,000 instead, you are either paying them very little, or not paying benefits (both of which are anathema to the DUmmies) but you still have a profit of $70,000, which taxed at 30% means that you will still be paying $21,000 in taxes, so now you are out $51,000.  This would be worth it if you needed a new employee, but if you can get by with the employees you have you are going to cut your losses and just pay the tax.

A better use of that money would be to invest it in new equipment, which you only have to pay for once and which will likely give you better return on your dollar than a new, unnecessary employee.

[DumbAss Tanker]

DAMN, that's stupid.  If your business would make more money by hiring a $30,000/year employee now, and you already have $30,000 per year in revenue after taxes and expenses that isn't earmarked for anything now, why wouldn't you have already hired the employee?

 

Sweet Jesus on a flaming unicycle.  I hope nobody is actually depending on that fool's management skillz for their living.

[Ralph Wiggum]

A better use of that money would be to invest it in new equipment, which you only have to pay for once and which will likely give you better return on your dollar than a new, unnecessary employee.

And you can depreciate equipment, but not employees.

[commonguymd]

I just lost brain cells reading that.

Cindie

Really remarkable to say the least.  How do they function, get out of bed, and exist with that type of logic in life?  Good grief.

[jtyangel]

tblue37  (1000+ posts)      Tue Aug-02-11 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
17. And if your business involves selling some product or service
 Edited on Tue Aug-02-11 04:23 PM by tblue37
to customers, then the fact that more people are employed and making enough money to purchase goods and services means that business will probably improve. Also, with more revenue, the government could improve infrastructure. Besides, if the government borrows less to meet its obligations, then interest rates go down.

And if more people can make an honest living, then those people, too, end up paying taxes rather than relying on the social safety net (what is left of it), so that simultaneously increases government revenue and reduces government expenditures as well.

Furthermore, with more people able to make a decent living honestly, crime goes down, which shows up in all sorts of ways in savings for businesses, not to mention just making life in this society more pleasant all around.

Win-win-win-win-win-win-win. . . .

But the real problem is related to the tragedy of the commons. The wealthy and powerful think only in the short-term, so all they care about is paying less in taxes right now, not in the long-term benefits to paying their fair share (benefits for themselves, for others, and for society as a whole).

 


I've not ever met one person with money in the bank who only thought in the short term. If anything, short termers are those living paycheck to paycheck. There worry  is not 5 or 10  years out but immediate. To claim otherwise is simply idiocy. Most people do not get or at least stay wealthy by thinking in the short term. Dummies...the rest of the post is even more disastrous so no pointing even waasting a moment on it. 

[jukin]

ZERO Bong!

So if my taxes go up, I will hire more people to make my costs go up even more?  

1+1=POTATO.

The whole problem with unemployment is 0bama HellCare and this graph proves it. This clearly demonstrates that INCREASING COST to business kills employment.

[jtyangel]

DAMN, that's stupid.  If your business would make more money by hiring a $30,000/year employee now, and you already have $30,000 per year in revenue after taxes and expenses that isn't earmarked for anything now, why wouldn't you have already hired the employee?

 

Sweet Jesus on a flaming unicycle.  I hope nobody is actually depending on that fool's management skillz for their living.

Hi 5 for using the term "Sweet Jesus on a flaming unicycle"

[jtyangel]

ZERO Bong!

So if my taxes go up, I will hire more people to make my costs go up even more?  

1+1=POTATO.

The whole problem with unemployment is 0bama HellCare and this graph proves it. This clearly demonstrates that INCREASING COST to business kills employment.

I think you are absolutely right. That monstrosity has in large part kept us in the rut we are in. Had that not passed, even with the 'one' in office, I think we would be on our way to some sort of recovery. See those wealthy businesses aren't thinking only in the short term like that one nitwit claimed...they are thinking to the long term implications of that monstrosity on their own budgets. DUmmies....

[FiddyBeowulf]

tblue37  (1000+ posts)      Tue Aug-02-11 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
17.

One other major factor, of course, is embodied in the statement by the corrupt businessman villain (played by Robert Culp) in Superman III: "It is not enough that I win--everyone else must lose!"

Robert Vaughn.  

[thundley4]

I think you are absolutely right. That monstrosity has in large part kept us in the rut we are in. Had that not passed, even with the 'one' in office, I think we would be on our way to some sort of recovery. See those wealthy businesses aren't thinking only in the short term like that one nitwit claimed...they are thinking to the long term implications of that monstrosity on their own budgets. DUmmies....

But, wait a minute.  The USSC had the chance to hear the case to declare ObamaCare unconstitutional, and declined. They decided to let the cases work their way through the appellate system.  If they had taken the case and declared ObamaCare unconstitutional then the economy might be on the road to recovery.  Did the USSC refuse to expedite because they didn't want to help Obama's reelection chances by helping to improve the economy?

[Wineslob]

Good Lord    

[FlippyDoo]

Dear BR_Parkway,

I don't know if you're aware of this, but after reading the thread titled "The Stellar Democrat Candidate Pool" (click for link) I have decided to throw my hat into the ring as a dem candidate. If I can count on your vote I will be more than happy to tax you $30,000 per year. As a matter of fact, since unemployment is so high and taxing you more will help cut unemployment I would even be willing to tax you $100,000 or so per year. I mean, really, my goal as your potential candidate it to help you. While we're discussing this is there anything else I can do that would help you out? Like maybe slap some sense into you? If so, just let me know.

Looking to be your fictional spirit-guide candidate,
FlippyDoo

[I_B_Perky]

I just lost brain cells reading that.

Cindie

Same opinion here... not to mention the two minutes of my life I'll never get back reading their stupid responses.

Just when I think they can't get any more stupid than they already are... they pop up with a thread like that.