(no subject)

[hudebnik]

From NPR: "Republicans, however, refused to accept the proposed surtax on the top two tenths of one percent, saying they are the job creators."

Actually, I think it's quite likely that the richer you are, the more jobs you create. I have a harder time believing that the richer you are, the more jobs you create per dollar. So it doesn't follow that a dollar given to a billionaire will create more jobs than a dollar given to a welfare mom, or that a dollar taxed from a billionaire will destroy more jobs than a dollar taxed from a minimum-wage worker.

In particular, if the sole purpose of the upper-income tax cut increase is to pay for a middle-class tax cut, as in the case at hand, the effect will almost certainly be net job creation.

Comments

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

i think you meant upper-income tax increase is to pay for a middle class tax cut.

I will be happy to make the argument that giving money to lower income brackets produces more economic activity, that is, creates more jobs, than giving the same money to the top .1% of wage earners.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

True.

But we need not play with theory. The past 10 years demonstrate, conclusively, that giving more money to the wealthy concentrates wealth, but does not create jobs. It creates bidding wars for existing corporate assets.

The sad truth is this: we've tried giving the wealthy more, and it has failed us.

[hudebnik.livejournal.com]

i think you meant upper-income tax increase is to pay for a middle class tax cut.

Oops; fixed, thanks.