What do you do with more money than you can spend? You invest it in your own company, by creating jobs and new industries within your company, or you invest it in other companies, and give them the opportunity to do so. Either way, it makes the economy stronger.
Answered By: あなたとは違うんです - 10/18/2008 |
|
Well the democrats would let you think that the president creates jobs not the employer.
Answered By: j_nieder961 - 10/18/2008 |
|
Some will expand their business and some won't.
Answered By: captainspaldingiv - 10/18/2008 |
|
In either case it perpetuates growth. If the employer keeps the money and buys a new car and condo, that generates work for the people that build the products.
Answered By: Mike K - 10/18/2008 |
|
Especially in these times, I wouldn't trust the greed of any man. How many times have you been at any job that is overflowing with business but you were short on staff.
Answered By: Anne H - 10/18/2008 |
|
Buffet doest not think so.
Answered By: road to no where - 10/18/2008 |
|
Check the data: under Republicans, every time there is a tax cut, there are massive layoffs.
Case closed.
Answered By: USA Is An Atheist Nation 92%er - 10/18/2008 |
|
Hmmmm...I think employers are more likely to hoard the money or spend it on themselves. That's why I like Obama's incentive programs!
The cost of health insurance has gone sky high for the last eight years of Bush...employers are feeling it big time. The health care industry is just like Wall Street....and Obama is the only candidate running for President that sees that!
Answered By: Deb M - 10/18/2008 |
|
Business managers get bonuses at the end of the year for being under staffed. I worked at a place that was purposely under staffed so the Boss could gloat his fat ugly butt in extra money and didn't care about his employees.
Answered By: Tonya Cruz - 10/18/2008 |
|
The employers will provide alot of new jobs with their tax cuts because they will want to make even more money. They will do this by expanding their business. This requires more workers.
Answered By: Jason - 10/18/2008 |
|
Have they been doing it? Redumblicans been kicking this can around since it was labeled "Reagonomics" it's the same old tactics...why would you think the rich would start employing now?!
All these businesses that have left and employed workers in foreign lands.
I think you made a wrong turn somewhere and you're lost...this is Earth.
Answered By: Ken E. Lamars - 10/18/2008 |
|
Employers create more jobs when their CORPORATE taxes are cut, not their personal taxes.
Answered By: tonks_op - 10/18/2008 |
|
In other times when business were booming, then I might have faith in businesses hiring more people. These days businesses are down, so I don't think with tax cuts, the companies will be hiring more people.
Answered By: JY - 10/18/2008 |
|
No because employers just end up pocketing it.
Answered By: Lurkain - 10/18/2008 |
|
Answered By: Mike - 10/18/2008 |
|
Under Obama's plan, the middle class would have more disposable income which means they could buy more goods and services. This results in increased revenue for companies and job creation as they try to keep up with demand.
The main problem with McCain's plan is I don't see where revenue to support the government is going to come from. He's talking about tax cuts and credits, but I haven't heard him mention any specifics about spending cuts. His proposed spending freeze would be fine had we been running a surplus or a balanced budget. But he's talking about freezing spending on a budget that was already underfunded and include many new funding cuts. This stinks of even greater deficit spending and adding to the national debt.
Answered By: Justin H - 10/18/2008 |
|
Has the trickle down theory EVER worked? Those tax subsidies that are "supposed" to create jobs end up in the pockets of shareholders.
Answered By: That One! - 10/18/2008 |
|
Tax cuts do nothing to create jobs. They only put more money in the pockets of the rich and the super rich.
Jobs are created by tax policies that directly benefit companies that are helped to expand and/or invest in new equipment.
Giving more money for bigger yachts and multiple homes doesn't do it.
Answered By: Je2ry - 10/18/2008 |
|
They've had a tax break for the past 8 years.In the past 6 months,over 800,000 jobs have been lost.Does the same continued tax breaks McCain is suggesting still sound like it's going to create jobs to you? I don't think so.
Answered By: Impact - 10/18/2008 |
|
Wow, doesn't look like many people understand basic economics. look as some of those answers. quite disappointing really.
You can't just focus on the proposed personal income tax. You must take into consideration all proposed policies and how the all interrelate with one another. In terms of just personal income tax it would be a good thing but after adding the effects of all the other proposals the average worker ends up paying more than they will ever get from the reduced taxes or 'rebates'.
An example is my sisters business, under Obama's proposals her payroll costs will increase by nearly $120,000 a year. That's nearly $10,000 a month in revenue they will lose. The only options are to reduce the workforce or raise prices, neither will benefit the economy.
Answered By: sklinkaware - 10/18/2008 |
|
No, since Bush's tax cuts didn't, now did they?
However, when Obama, a Democrat, *does* cut taxes for the majority of small business owners, *they* will create more jobs. And Obama's 50?ax credit so that they can buy health insurance for their workers, will improve the quality of life for small business employees and their families.
Answered By: truth_supports_Dems - 10/18/2008 |
|
Since in many (if not all) cases they have the choice of putting on workers
here or in some foreign country, when the time comes that they do see a need to expand a line or start a new line, they will not be encouraged by higher
taxes and mandated health care provision to put those lines on in foreign countries.
You've got to remember that the reason employers once did voluntarily offer these non-wage emoluments to prospective employees was to attract them to the jobs--at a time when skilled employees were harder to come by and when the rest of the world was not stable enough for these companies to risk
putting a factory in--or faith in someone else's factory there.
This is their peace dividend. That used to be a big buzz-phrase back after Reagan said "tear down this wall". Well, here it is---they get everything their way again. The threat of communism did make them a little more appreciative of those who had risked life and limb to fight it for them or whose sons lives were being risked for it, but it didn't take them any longer to forget than it does the rest of us they lost limbs and lives for our Rights of Man.
We all forget it. So now it's time for things to go back to where they were before communism, when the only thing limiting our industrialists from putting all their factories where trained monkeys could do the scut-work in them was the costs of shipping thing, the fact you couldn't look down from space and see where the hurricanes and typhoons were and were heading and so-on.
Now there are huge efficient ships which can move these slave-made goods far and wide, and nations overseas with a pernicious admixture of communism and capitalism---the iron-fist-in-the-mailed-glove aspect that controls trade unionism and the capitalistic profit motive which creates the productivity--and they can have their production there.
Too, the other nations have made strides in education of their people in the technical arts necessary too, largely as a direct result of having gone toe-to-toe with us in the Cold War.
There's a lesson to be learned here. The lesson is, next time you have a chance to rule the entire world (as during the end of WW II) don't puss-out, go ahead and do it.
I doubt anyone will learn the lesson--it seems not, because the War on Terrorism ought to have been used as the pretext to take our second grab at that gold ring--the entire rest of the world would have thanked us, eventually.
But no--we had the critics of "nation building" and the anti-war crowd and those who blame guns for NEGR0 violence worrying so strongly that we might have made war on a nation not directly implicated in the WTTs attack--oh no! Not that!
So there was our most recent (and probably last) chance to really make sure the world was a better place for the existence of our nation fumbled--and all the accusers of fumbling pointing their uneducated and obfuscatory fingers 180 degrees away from the true problems--as usual.
And so the capitalist/industrialists, being handed a lemon---that being a world in which communism was allowed to continue to exist as a body might allow walled-off colonies of tuberculosis to continue to exist--they've made tuberculosis-ade.
Yum! Tuberculosisade!
The world was made safe for the industrialist/capitalist, but not for the trade unions.
That's because they were seduced by the industrialists into a philosophy of ridiculously high wages over the same sort of government support for their ability to expand outward the crafty industrialists insisted on.
The labor unions sat back and got fat while their opposition left them in the dirt--a total disrespect for the busted heads, lost lives and machine-gun bullet-riddled bodies of the children of those who originally created a unionist movement. I'm not taking up for it or promoting it, but people sacrificed terribly to create that movement and then their beneficiaries sat back and took getting fat over helping the rest of the world's laborers to get some measure of justice and on-the-job safety.
So, if you want to worry about why someone isn't sharing equitably in the fruits of his or her labor--which would be hugely smaller fruits without the clever abilities of the industrialists to organize and amplify those labors--go stand in front of some labor union business-agent in his fancy suit after he steps out of his lexus and stare him down. He's the one supposed to be on your side, not some politicians of either party who are easily bought-off.
Ask him why the AFLCIO paid for busloads of illegal replacement workers to travel across your nation and converge on your nation's capital and petition your elected leaders for redress of their illegal alien grievances.
I was there telling 'em to go swim back across the Rio Grande when they came to my vicinity--where were y
Source(s):
I was there--you were watching a football game.
Answered By: 920 AM's gunboy - 10/18/2008 |
|