Democrat senator says that unemployment benefits, not tax cuts, create jobs

[cartouch100]

HEADLINE: Democrat senator Sherrod Brown says that unemployment benefits, not tax cuts, create jobs



OVERVIEW: Democrat senator Sherrod Brown appeared on Chris Matthews' Hardball show and said that unemployment benefits create US jobs, not tax cuts! He's repeating the lie that Nancy Pelosi first said not that long ago.



LINK: http://www.examiner.com/american-po...nemployment-benefits-not-tax-cuts-create-jobs

 

[Gipper]

HEADLINE: Democrat senator Sherrod Brown says that unemployment benefits, not tax cuts, create jobs



OVERVIEW: Democrat senator Sherrod Brown appeared on Chris Matthews' Hardball show and said that unemployment benefits create US jobs, not tax cuts! He's repeating the lie that Nancy Pelosi first said not that long ago.



LINK: http://www.examiner.com/american-po...nemployment-benefits-not-tax-cuts-create-jobs

I wonder do useful idiots believe what Pelosi and Brown have said about creating jobs?

There are several useful idiots who post here at the HOP, could you please let me know your thoughts? I am most interested.

If a conservative R said something equally ignorant, the left wing MSM would be playing on TV, radio, and in the newspapers over and over and over...and the useful idiots would dutifully believe.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

and they do, tax cuts can reduce it a bit, but the cost is alot higher...companies save, rich people save..unemployed spend..spending leads to sales..sales leads to...income...leads to jobs as sales are better thus need more workers and or product.

 

[Gipper]

and they do, tax cuts can reduce it a bit, but the cost is alot higher...companies save, rich people save..unemployed spend..spending leads to sales..sales leads to...income...leads to jobs as sales are better thus need more workers and or product.

As I thought.

What more needs to be said...

 

[pocketfullofshells]

As I thought.

What more needs to be said...

in other words

you other words, you can't come up with anything to show I am wrong...

 

[BigRob]

and they do, tax cuts can reduce it a bit, but the cost is alot higher...companies save, rich people save..unemployed spend..spending leads to sales..sales leads to...income...leads to jobs as sales are better thus need more workers and or product.

Unemployment benefits have been extended so that people are able to collect them for the longest amount of time ever.. (I think) Given that, if unemployment benefits are the job creation engine that he seems to be arguing they are, why are we not seeing a period of of equally as large job growth?

 

[Hobo1]

and they do, tax cuts can reduce it a bit, but the cost is alot higher...companies save, rich people save..unemployed spend..spending leads to sales..sales leads to...income...leads to jobs as sales are better thus need more workers and or product.

No, with lower taxes, companies are willing to take chances by hiring people.

Think of it like this: You have a small company that sells advertising to discussion forums. Now the more people, and more time you have employees contacting owners of discussion forums, you make a little extra profit. But, you have to pay the workers every 2 weeks - and some weeks are not so good, so you've got to dip into your savings to make payroll. The economy is weak, and your confidence in the future in not very strong.

NOW, suddenly your little company gets a tax cut and unemployment benefits are running out on 10% of the population. You can now hire people cheaper and don't have to worry quite as much about making payroll because the tax cuts put a little extra money in your bank account.

If you are a good businessman, you would probably want to hire more people, because the more employees you have will increase the income and the value of your whole company. That is what most businessmen do.

A very small number will take the tax cut and just "stick it in their pocket". Why? Because businessmen LIKE TO GROW THEIR BUSINESS. Later in life, when the business is big and profitable - then they might buy a little nicer car. Got it?

 

[PLC1]

If your company is not making money, then you're not paying taxes, so tax cuts aren't going to have any effect at all.

If, on the other hand, your customers have some money in hand, whether it is from employment or unemployment, then you have a market and a chance to make a profit, on which you pay taxes to help pay for things like unemployment insurance.

If a corporation has a profit of a million dollars, for example, and if taxes on the profits are outrageous once the profit exceeds a quarter of a million, then why not use the extra $750 grand to hire more employees? Why not use the money to increase inventory or make capital gains improvements? Either way, the corporation will be creating jobs. If it keeps the profits, then a large chunk of it will go to pay taxes.

The idea that cutting taxes increases revenue is simply pie in the sky voodoo economics. There is no free lunch.

 

[BigRob]

If your company is not making money, then you're not paying taxes, so tax cuts aren't going to have any effect at all.

You may not be paying income tax, but if you have employees, you are paying taxes.

If, on the other hand, your customers have some money in hand, whether it is from employment or unemployment, then you have a market and a chance to make a profit, on which you pay taxes to help pay for things like unemployment insurance.

Sounds like a vicious cycle that ultimately could mean we print money into oblivion to help increase tax revenues to pay for people who are not working.

If a corporation has a profit of a million dollars, for example, and if taxes on the profits are outrageous once the profit exceeds a quarter of a million, then why not use the extra $750 grand to hire more employees? Why not use the money to increase inventory or make capital gains improvements? Either way, the corporation will be creating jobs. If it keeps the profits, then a large chunk of it will go to pay taxes.

If a company makes a profit of a million dollars, and buys a million dollars worth of inventory, that would not make their tax bill $0.. am I wrong here?

The idea that cutting taxes increases revenue is simply pie in the sky voodoo economics. There is no free lunch.

There is a free lunch... it is called two years of unemployment benefits.

 

[Rick]

and they do, tax cuts can reduce it a bit, but the cost is alot higher...companies save, rich people save..unemployed spend..spending leads to sales..sales leads to...income...leads to jobs as sales are better thus need more workers and or product.

Keynsian krapola debunked over and over. Right now, "rich people" are buying stocks, not saving. Anyone with half a brain knows that right now cash is trash. When companies raise capital by selling stock, it's to invest in plant and equipment and hire more employees. But they have to wait till the new congress to be sure they are free from the fear and uncertainty of the next leftwing crackpot scheme to be hatched in the whitehouse.

 

[Hobo1]

If your company is not making money, then you're not paying taxes, so tax cuts aren't going to have any effect at all.

If you've got employees, you are still paying FICA and benefits.
That tax cut also allowed business to depreciate equipment in 1 year. So a company can buy computers are write them off in one year - not have to spread the depreciation over 3 years. These tax cuts make a company money, even if the balance sheet says your company is not making money.

Lots of technical accounting stuff in those tax cuts that help business - not just income taxes.

 

[PLC1]

You may not be paying income tax, but if you have employees, you are paying taxes.

But it is income taxes, not payroll taxes, that the government is discussing cutting in order to stimulate the economy.

Sounds like a vicious cycle that ultimately could mean we print money into oblivion to help increase tax revenues to pay for people who are not working.

As long as people aren't working, yes. If profits mean putting more people back to work, then no.

If a company makes a profit of a million dollars, and buys a million dollars worth of inventory, that would not make their tax bill $0.. am I wrong here?

Why not? If the inventory purchase is a business expense, then it is deductible. Same with salaries and capital improvements.

Actually, a well run corporation should pay little or nothing in taxes. Most of the profits it makes is paid out to business expenses, salaries, and dividends to stockholders. Of course, the employees and stockholders pay taxes on that money, but the corporation does not.

There is a free lunch... it is called two years of unemployment benefits.

Unemployment benefits are hardly free, but the cost is less than the amount paid out, as much of the money comes back when the recipients patronize businesses. Without unemployment benefits, this depression would have been much like the one in the 1930s, when there was no safety net at all, either for workers, investors, or bank depositors.

 

[GenSeneca]

Without unemployment benefits, this depression would have been much like the one in the 1930s, when there was no safety net at all, either for workers, investors, or bank depositors.

Talk about your voodoo economic theories...

 

[BigRob]

But it is income taxes, not payroll taxes, that the government is discussing cutting in order to stimulate the economy.

They need to be talking about both in my opinion.

As long as people aren't working, yes. If profits mean putting more people back to work, then no.

Profits have not meant putting people back to work to date that I have seen.

Why not? If the inventory purchase is a business expense, then it is deductible. Same with salaries and capital improvements.

Actually, a well run corporation should pay little or nothing in taxes. Most of the profits it makes is paid out to business expenses, salaries, and dividends to stockholders. Of course, the employees and stockholders pay taxes on that money, but the corporation does not.

Dividends are taxed twice. The company cannot pay out a dividend without first reporting that money as profit, and thereby paying tax on it. The person who gets the dividend then pays tax on it again.

In terms of the tax write offs, does it not depend on how a company is structured to look at the exact write offs they can take?

Unemployment benefits are hardly free, but the cost is less than the amount paid out, as much of the money comes back when the recipients patronize businesses. Without unemployment benefits, this depression would have been much like the one in the 1930s, when there was no safety net at all, either for workers, investors, or bank depositors.

So it was unemployment benefits that prevented another depression? It seems like you are arguing that it is not "trickle-down" economics that works.. except when the trickle comes from the government...

 

[PLC1]

They need to be talking about both in my opinion.

Probably so, but they're not.

Profits have not meant putting people back to work to date that I have seen.

what else is going to put people back to work?

Dividends are taxed twice. The company cannot pay out a dividend without first reporting that money as profit, and thereby paying tax on it. The person who gets the dividend then pays tax on it again.

Really? I didn't know that. It sounds like an unconstitutional double taxation to me, but I'm no tax accountant.

In terms of the tax write offs, does it not depend on how a company is structured to look at the exact write offs they can take?

I'm sure it does. I'm equally sure that a retail establishment, for example, doesn't pay taxes on the money they use to purchase inventory for retail sales. If they did, their profit margin would have to be greater than the tax they pay, or they would go in the hole.

So it was unemployment benefits that prevented another depression? It seems like you are arguing that it is not "trickle-down" economics that works.. except when the trickle comes from the government...

Trickle down' doesn't work. Percolate up works: If the average person has money, then business has a market, if not, then there is no market. Henry Ford understood that principle, and put it into practice.