Taxing the Wealthy Kills Jobs Is a Myth, If Not a Whopper

cancel2 2022

Canceled
MILLBROOK, N.Y. -- To judge by the Republican Party convention last month, we are in for four more months of hosannas to the "job creators." Brace yourself too for endless assertions until election day about the adverse impact that any increased taxation of the wealthy will have on the job market.

To hear the GOP tell it, the threat to the job market is all too real. In reality, it is a myth. However cherished in the telling and the retelling, myth it remains, even an outright falsehood. It has no basis either in fact or in theory.

As for fact, years of relatively high tax rates on those at the top of the income distribution (the 1950s and the 1990s, for example) have also been years of prosperity. Years of unusually low tax rates have been times of high unemployment, notably the past few years.

None of the history, however, disproves a causal relationship. But neither does it support one. The U.S. economy is much too complicated and intricate for facile claims about how one aspect of policy (or any other single force for that matter) affects it.

What is sure, though, is that economic theory exposes the myth as a falsehood. The theory of the firm developed since the time of Alfred Marshall, the great British economist of the early 20th century, is that firms, private as well as public ones, expand until marginal cost equals marginal revenue. It is then and only then that profits (or whatever else the firm's bottom line may be called) are maximized. Firms keep adding factors of production -- labor among them -- until that point is reached.

When firms decide to add labor to the production process, what matters is their expectations for profits before tax, not after tax. Short of a wholly implausible tax rate of 100% on earnings, the tax rate does not even enter into a firm's decision to hire or not hire.

The only reason I hire someone is because I believe I will profit as a result. If I can make $5,000 in a year, say, by paying a new hire $50,000, I will hire him. And I will still hire him if the $5,000 profit is taxed at a 40% rate, say, rather than at a 20% rate. In the one case, I will pocket $3,000; in the other $4,000. Either way, I win. I will follow through in the hiring decision at either tax rate whenever a prospective new hire is likely to contribute more to the revenue of the firm than he is paid.

Indeed, the whole notion that rich people create jobs is silly. The process rather is that the new hire and the employer jointly reach a decision to try to add to the profitability of the firm. The decision is dictated by the economics of the firm, as reflected in its marginal cost and revenue curves. Jobs materialize when employers see -- and act on -- an opportunity to profit from the work of the people they can employ. Jobs are not created in the ordinary sense of that word, nor is the tax rate paid by employers on the resulting profit relevant.

This is all theory, you may say. And so it is. But there is nothing so practical as a good theory; nothing so impractical -- worthless even -- as myth masquerading as truth. Most politicians don't know much economics (you only have to watch the nightly news to see that, let alone last month's Republican convention). But that doesn't stop them from spouting nonsense, which after repetition ad nauseam by head-nodding journalists gets accepted as dogma. Even so, it is still nonsense. And, like all nonsense coming out of the mouths of those who hold or seek power, it diminishes all of the rest of us, indeed the nation as a whole.

Written by Walter M. Cadette, an economist (JP Morgan, retired) and formerly senior scholar at the Jerome Levy Economics Institute at Bard College.
 
Absolutely......the more money you take from the rich in taxes the more money they will have to invest and/or hire people to grow their business or the more money they will spend and consume so that other manufactures can prosper.....

so, the best thing to do is take ALL the money away from ALL the rich, and watch the economy grow.....

I guess thats gonna make sense to Aoxo......

Now, I gonna head down to the homeless shelter and see if some of them will hire me to do their laundry and press their dress shirts....
 
Last edited:
Absolutely......the more money you take from the rich in taxes the more money they will have to invest and/or hire people to grow their business or the more money they will spend and consume so that other manufactures can prosper.....

so, the best thing to do is take ALL the money away from ALL the rich, and watch the economy grow.....

I guess thats gonna make sense to Aoxo......

Now, I gonna head down to the homeless shelter and see if some of them will hire me to do their laundry and press their dress shirts....

Why don't you explain why the 50's was such a prosperous time for the US, in spite of the 90% tax rate, genius?
 
Why don't you explain why the 50's was such a prosperous time for the US, in spite of the 90% tax rate, genius?

why don't you explain why th 80's and 90's were such a prosperous time for the US, in spite of the approximately 30% tax rate, genius?
 
Why don't you explain why the 50's was such a prosperous time for the US, in spite of the 90% tax rate, genius?

The end of WW II.....a Republican in the White House.....2 terms....women in the work force like never before, etc...
 
Why don't you explain why the 50's was such a prosperous time for the US, in spite of the 90% tax rate, genius?

So now you want to go back to the 50s? Aren't you libs always crying about the GOP taking you back to the 50s?

What about moving FORWARD not BACK?

I wish you stupid libs would make up your minds.

That pain you feel in your head is pride fuckin wit ya
 
MILLBROOK, N.Y. -- To judge by the Republican Party convention last month, we are in for four more months of hosannas to the "job creators." Brace yourself too for endless assertions until election day about the adverse impact that any increased taxation of the wealthy will have on the job market.

To hear the GOP tell it, the threat to the job market is all too real. In reality, it is a myth. However cherished in the telling and the retelling, myth it remains, even an outright falsehood. It has no basis either in fact or in theory.

As for fact, years of relatively high tax rates on those at the top of the income distribution (the 1950s and the 1990s, for example) have also been years of prosperity. Years of unusually low tax rates have been times of high unemployment, notably the past few years.

None of the history, however, disproves a causal relationship. But neither does it support one. The U.S. economy is much too complicated and intricate for facile claims about how one aspect of policy (or any other single force for that matter) affects it.

What is sure, though, is that economic theory exposes the myth as a falsehood. The theory of the firm developed since the time of Alfred Marshall, the great British economist of the early 20th century, is that firms, private as well as public ones, expand until marginal cost equals marginal revenue. It is then and only then that profits (or whatever else the firm's bottom line may be called) are maximized. Firms keep adding factors of production -- labor among them -- until that point is reached.

When firms decide to add labor to the production process, what matters is their expectations for profits before tax, not after tax. Short of a wholly implausible tax rate of 100% on earnings, the tax rate does not even enter into a firm's decision to hire or not hire.

The only reason I hire someone is because I believe I will profit as a result. If I can make $5,000 in a year, say, by paying a new hire $50,000, I will hire him. And I will still hire him if the $5,000 profit is taxed at a 40% rate, say, rather than at a 20% rate. In the one case, I will pocket $3,000; in the other $4,000. Either way, I win. I will follow through in the hiring decision at either tax rate whenever a prospective new hire is likely to contribute more to the revenue of the firm than he is paid.

Indeed, the whole notion that rich people create jobs is silly. The process rather is that the new hire and the employer jointly reach a decision to try to add to the profitability of the firm. The decision is dictated by the economics of the firm, as reflected in its marginal cost and revenue curves. Jobs materialize when employers see -- and act on -- an opportunity to profit from the work of the people they can employ. Jobs are not created in the ordinary sense of that word, nor is the tax rate paid by employers on the resulting profit relevant.

This is all theory, you may say. And so it is. But there is nothing so practical as a good theory; nothing so impractical -- worthless even -- as myth masquerading as truth. Most politicians don't know much economics (you only have to watch the nightly news to see that, let alone last month's Republican convention). But that doesn't stop them from spouting nonsense, which after repetition ad nauseam by head-nodding journalists gets accepted as dogma. Even so, it is still nonsense. And, like all nonsense coming out of the mouths of those who hold or seek power, it diminishes all of the rest of us, indeed the nation as a whole.

Written by Walter M. Cadette, an economist (JP Morgan, retired) and formerly senior scholar at the Jerome Levy Economics Institute at Bard College.

Profits and revenues are not the same
 
The first and foremost "whopper" is that we tax the wealthy. WE DON'T!

We tax people who earn a high income... they aren't necessarily "wealthy" people.

Most "wealthy" people don't earn any more income, they already earned it, that's why they became wealthy.

Many of them gain wealth from other people using their money, and we can tax those earnings, but there is an important thing to remember with ANY tax, it always decreases the activity which is taxed. So if we tax people more for letting people use their money, there will be less money available for people to use.

There is another myth, and that is; Wealthy people simply have no choice but to pay whatever tax we levy. Since we tax income and not wealth, what happens when we increase tax on large incomes is, wealthy people stop earning large incomes. They don't need incomes like the middle class, who have to pay mortgages and bills, they are wealthy, so all of that is already paid for and they can live comfortably on their wealth, they have no need to earn any more income.

Finally, there is the myth that increasing top marginal tax rates increases revenues. The past 3 times we've tried it, that hasn't been the result. We actually saw a DECREASE in revenues as percentage of the GDP, which is the only way to measure it accurately. Subsequently, when we've lowered the top marginal rates, we've seen an increase in tax revenues from that demographic every time.
 
Taxing the corperations will not cause one job to be lost,but If we tax the wealty we can use that to fund giveing jobs to those who really need it.
The biggest mistake that Obama made wasnt tn creating the stimulas was that he gave all that money to the wrong people.The only thing the rich will do with it is stash it in their bank account.If the money was given to the poor,they would have used it and expanded the economy.
 
There is another myth, and that is; Wealthy people simply have no choice but to pay whatever tax we levy. Since we tax income and not wealth, what happens when we increase tax on large incomes is, wealthy people stop earning large incomes. They don't need incomes like the middle class, who have to pay mortgages and bills, they are wealthy, so all of that is already paid for and they can live comfortably on their wealth, they have no need to earn any more income.

dixie, this isn't a flaw in their strategy, it's part of their plan.

They can spend time grabbing money that isn't theirs, and then say "hey guuuuyyys, it's not enough! now we need to do a wealth tax!"

the money grabbers will try to shake out every penny they can. count on it.
 
Back
Top