December 09, 2011
Real Job Creators Smarter & More Honest Than GOP Politicians
In a rare example of a Mainstream Media entity NOT taking a GOP talking point at face value, NPR sought out "job creators" who would be discouraged by the proposed "millionaires surtax".
We wanted to talk to business owners who would be affected. So, NPR requested help from numerous Republican congressional offices, including House and Senate leadership. They were unable to produce a single millionaire job creator for us to interview.
So we went to the business groups that have been lobbying against the surtax. Again, three days after putting in a request, none of them was able to find someone for us to talk to."
Myth Busted. (And no explosions or cannonballs required)
-
This theory has never made sense to me. Business owners make as much money as they can. They employ people to make themselves money. They don't employ people because they want to hand out jobs. Their taxes are irrelevant. If they think they can make more money by hiring a new employee, they will do so. If not, they won't. I have five people who work for me. They are there because I need them. They are there because their work allows my business to handle whatever work we are getting. I don't hire them because I can afford them. I hire them because I need them or because they can generate more revenue for me. It is sort of like that idiotic minimum wage argument that the Republicans always trot out. They say that if we raise the minimum wage, then businesses will have to lay people off because their labor cost will go up. Really? So companies like McDonald's like to just keep extra employees on the payroll working? If we raised the minimum wage, then McDonald's would have to lay off those workers they don't need? That is idiotic. McDonald's -- and pretty much every company -- keep as few people working as possible to maximize their profits. That is how business works. Companies don't keep extra workers around for no reason because the minimum wage is low. They employ the amount they need. Sorry for the rambling. These things are upsetting to me.
-
Unless they were to hire more clowns. Oh, and with cowbells. Can't get enough clownbells <:(!)
-
Alright, maybe that's a stretch for a wise-crack. Even at McDonalds employing strolling clowns would be a hard sell these days. Corporate has strict rules limiting the franchise owners from effecting their own creative ideas. It wasn't always so bad, but it is now. For example, owners who wanted their own interior themes could employ free lance artists to paint original murals even, and I know that from personal experience :) Today not so much... Also, in the old days, millionaires collected the work of fine artists, justifying that self employment. Is it different now? Have we really entered a new age run by philistine curmudgeons? Or not?
-
These taxes that they are talking about are for really rich people. If you make a million a year, a six percent increase will take away 60 thousand from that person in one year. I think the argument is that if you let that person keep that sixty thousand, then he might be more likely to reinvest that money in his business to try to make even more. That reinvestment would likely come in the form of giving someone a job.
-
Admittedly there's a huge inverse relationship to be rectified, but why make cuts in social security (payroll) taxes the poster boy? After all, we could just as easily cut regular (largely wasted) income taxes and also make them more equitable... Instead I fear as if the social security program were being singled out by name in this way for subsequent demonization :(
-
Oh, that and workman's comp, I guess.