Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: If the wealthy actually were job creators,

Posted 1 year ago on Dec. 30, 2012, 1:34 p.m. EST by brightonsage (4494)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

they would have proved it and saved the $100's of millions they actually spent in the election lying about everything they could think of, black mailing and buying officials, preventing legitimate voters from voting, and pandering to crazy social position they don't agree with to get the votes of various mentally and emotionally unstable groups and individuals.

The fact that we all knew from our personal experience, is that the wealthy prefer investments in entities that can use their financial muscle and legal immunity to extract usurious profits, from the vulnerable (as oligarchs do) to those that actually provide needed goods and services at reasonable prices or fees.

There is a reason there is a term like vulture capitalists and if you have had any experience trying to start or grow a company, you will know how accurate that designation is.

If you have had experiences in which the wealthy chose investing in a business that offered a modest return on investment (say 15%/year) and employed many people at above the middle class average income, over those that offered an ROI of 5 times the initial investment in 5 years with few employes?

51 Comments

51 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by Freedom2100 (25) 1 year ago

The complete alienation of the 1% from the consuming experience of most Americans is holding the economy back. You go to a store, especially a grocery store and the stocking and shelving arrangements of the items make no logical sense. You call a customer service site and just talk to a robot--a VRU, and if you do get a real person they are minimally trained to give out still more party-line robotic answers that go nowhere. So you get to this point of WTF?.....and then try to go to a competitor who does the same things. This all comes from decision-makers (the 1%) who are completely divorced from the everyday shopping experience of average Americans. These folks have others doing the grocery shopping or making calls to troubleshoot problems. Result: business decisions that treat us as consuming machines rather than real live feeling human beings since there is an absence of empathy. Quality of life notwithstanding, this has got to change for the economy to get better in a real way!

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

You have it accurately described.

[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Well lets just see if the "wealthy actually create jobs". How many companies in America are "owned by wealthy Americans"?

If you say very few then I say lets shut them down and see how many people become unemployed.

That will be the true test - or we can expirement and ask those who earn more the 1 million dollars in income, and own a business, to close those businesses down for a month. Lets see what kind of impact that would have.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

I believe the wealthy had a great deal to gain, continued low tax rates, huge loop holes and positive public image as incentives to make the case with data that is without doubt available to them. Any data they didn't have would certainly been made available if they had only asked, which they didn't.

Instead of doing this relatively small task, (if the facts are as they and their apologists stated ad nauseum), they have obviously wasted huge amounts of cash trying to influence the outcome of the election in ways that are repugnant to most Americans and people around the world.

So, your little experiment, poorly conceived as it is, has no positive purpose and even if it would show what you claim, would be and has been under the control of the wealthy who could have already done it, not us.

If they were job creators they could have demonstrated it positively by simply using the money they wasted to hire a large number of employes in the businesses they control. That would demonstrate their control and ability to cause the outcome that they have claimed, and it is good for the other shareholders, the employees, the government, and the other companies who are customers and suppliers. That is what a true test looks like. One could think of it as stimulus. Which we know works. Instead they have actually demonstrated their stupidity. They invested $billions with essentially no return. The only jobs they created was for Turd Blossom, Armey, and their ilk.

[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Do you really know anything about owning a business or managing a business.

One thing I am certain of - todays business owners continually being slammed about being "evil rich and wealthy" are not going to go out of their way to employ people for that very reason.

When businesses are continually condemmed because of their success they start to reign in and instead of investing, stash it for the future.

If you think its bad now just wait.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

I have started several companies. Sold some. Some failed. Been a COO, CEO, VP Engineering, VP Marketing, Chief Information Officer for public company and a lot of positions down to Technician. Several patents and innovation, Top sales man in the US, top branch manager etc. So, I know a little about how it goes.

The managers are all trying to make their quarters, the owners won't sacrifice a nickle generally, but some have held back hiring for two t=reasons, 1) they can coerce employees to work harder and more hours when the economy is bad (that is why productivity has continued to go up while income has been static, and 2) they wanted to keep unemployment high to sink Obama's chances. Now they will have to add some people because what they have are starting to burn out. My son in law has been working 70-80 hour weeks for 9 months and he is toast.

The companies have a fortune stashed in cash (unprecedented levels) because they thought they would be able to repatriate it tax free under Romney. Ooooops.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Here's the way I see it. If people want to have control of a business let them start their own business and invest in it with other people who think the same way. Let them manage it and let them worry about all the things associated with running a business.

Then they won't have to worry about someone who took it upon themselves to start their own business to employ them.

Hey, if people don't like working for someone - pool their money together and start their own business that should solve their problem shouldn't it?

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8651) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Looking at the history of tax rates, one would think that higher tax rates are what creates jobs.

http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates?op=1

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

I for one am willing to give it a try. Carlos Slim's net worth went up 21.6% last year and that is better than mine did.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8651) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

The Forbes 400 hit a new all time high yet the GOP keeps saying we're broke, what bull crap!

We have an economic system designed to funnel money to the top and a government that's completely forgot it's job is to redistribute that wealth so that the system can keep working and the hard working smart guys can keep getting rich, but there must be movement of money for that to happen and the government is suppose to provide that by taking from those at the top and using it for roads, wars, and schools that's how things keep moving. Under Bush the government started taking too much out of the middle and not enough from the top and the whole system just got constipated. So yeah higher tax rates at the top would create jobs, it has for the last 25 years or so anyway.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

I concur. But we need to get corporate governance fixed. The outrageous compensation of management and the boards needs to be changed. Their incentives are wrong and we can see the evidence of it in almost every public corporation. Since the boards are bought by the CEO's and vice versa I think it has to be changed by state law or preempted by a federal law. Delaware and a few others compete for state incorporation's by letting them get by with murder. Finger pointing by mutual funds, CEO's, State Attorney's General etc. is just a way for them all to avoid cleaning up this mess.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8651) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Here's a wiki piece a couple of charts in it, one shows where the top %% gained at over twice the rate of the bottom half and another shows where the US wealth inequality gets worse after taxes, not better as the right sort of claims, mostly they just imply it when talking about rates

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

I don't see the link or the light perhaps? But I think I may have seen it on the TV machine.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8651) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago
[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

That is a fabulous compilation of the facts. They scream for themselves.

Thank you

[-] -2 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

carlos slim = self made millionaire ( billionair)

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

SELF MADE? Riiiiight! Yeah, those rich guys are hurting. Did better than yours did too.

[-] -2 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

"Did better than yours did too"? what are you trying to say? carlos slim helu is self made billionare

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Yeah, I'm saying his net worth grew more than ours did. Define "self made." Did he make all of the decisions for the corporations that he own's, controls, has a piece of. Does he claim to be self made? I have had about every job in a company (except CFO) and I have been the largest shareholder in some but I never claimed to be self made. About the time that the production line stops and nobody knows why, you find out pretty quick that you are not as selfmade as you thought.

[-] -2 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

self made,............. worked to make his own fortune , did not inherit it

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

A little more self made than Romney who inherited it, made more, gave (away) what he inherited, and kept the rest?.

[-] -2 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

we are not talking about romney. the subject is carlos slim helu.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

I was the one who introduced Carlos Slim to the conversation (see above) so I can introduce another rich guy, as well. You don't get to set the rules. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say....

Most of the top 100 billionaires net worth's went up substantially last year. So, I imagine Willard's did too. I would be happy to look at his tax return, which he will soon publish, no doubt. He probably doesn't need you to defend him, either.

[-] -2 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

billionaires do not rely on salaries , their holdings gain in value.

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Did somebody say, "salaries"? Hmmm? Nope. Nobody said salaries. Net worth, probably something you don't have. Tax returns show dividends, interest, profit from sales of assets, stuff like that which indicate a return from their investments, which are sometimes identified, if they aren't trying to hide it like Willard does, http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/13/barack-obama/obama-links-romney-infamous-tax-shelter/

You report salary, They report income. That's why it is called "income tax"

[+] -5 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

you like so many other on ows know so much about what you dont know.

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Generalize away, general. Ignore all substance. Deflect. Obfuscate. Delay. Confound. Confuse. Break all mirrors. Mute small children. Retreat silently. Preserve prejudice at all cost. We have everything to fear, but not if we get them first. Where is my channel clicker?

[-] -2 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

you're sitting on it.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Excellent. The duplicitous fallacies spread by the right wing to protect their puppet master 1% corp oligarchs must be challenged with truth and facts.

Everyone should absorb these realities and recognize that if the wealthy paid their fair share ALL would benefit.

Thx

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8651) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

In order to have a capitalistic system government must levy sufficient tax on the wealthy to prevent it form becoming a Monarchy, and it keeps the engine of rewarding hard work running.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

This "fiscal cliff" tax increase is only good in that it is the 1st time we've increased the wealthy taxes.

Not enough!! The cap gains/div, & estate should've been allowed to revert to the higherrates.

But we must accept this slow progress and agitate all pols for more.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I'm not really surprised, the cap gains/div should have been allowed to be taxed like regular income, & the estate should have been allowed to revert to 55%.

As always the left (such as it is) gives away too much, but there is a tax rate increase on the top 2% (not nearly enough) for the 1st time in 20 years, and we must find a way to build on that.

Otherwise the PTB will use that small increase as the excuse NOT to do anymore.

We MUST fight to :

  • Remove all deductions for the wealthiest.

  • Create a new 90% top tax rate.

  • Minimum tax for wealthy.

  • Remove payroll cap on SS contributions, (cut that tax for lowest income)

  • Add 1% fin transaction tax.

  • Add a SS/Medicare/ACA tax to all passive income (cap gains/div/royalties/rent)

These items can still address the destructive, obscene concentration of wealth that is crushing the 99%.

This new deal doesn't do much to address income equity, that battle remains. Our role in that continuing battle is to exclaim our disgust at the falures in this deal, & pressure all pols on the street, & in the voting booth for progressive change that benefits the 99%.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8651) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Here's piece from Huffington about the worst of the deal.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/02/fiscal-cliff-wall-street_n_2397933.html

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Tax gifts to huge corps is so disgusting (I do like the wind tax break extension generally but not the GE recipient)

In any event this is the current state of affairs, This is how we get support from pols who are bought & paid for by corp oligarchs.

Clearly this is why we must get money out of politics

movetoamend.org.

If we got the fundamental changes we needed I would make less noise about these obscene gifts.

But we ain't gettin the changes we need.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8651) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

The GOP are trying to say they're done with taxes the Ds are saying no way, this could be a real chance to get more fairness into the system as the Ds fight to keep taxes off the middle class and for at least dollar for dollar revenue for spending cuts, any moves on "entitlements" must include an increase in the Social Security cap too, dollar for dollar at least.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Repubs MUST push the 'tax increases are over' spin. It's their weak attempt to stop the momentum that Occupy created more than a year ago.

Entitlements? Progressives should propose removing the payroll cap for SS, and controlling healthcare costs (prescr negotiations?) to create savings in Medica(re id)

Although I support other rate increases on the wealthy, I think there are other changes that can be pursued, closing loopholes/deductions, adding passive income taxes (cap gains/div, royalties, rents). As well as a fin trans tax.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8651) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

In politics the public sentiment can shape the outcome, the details are at the mercy of the lobbyist, I wish it weren't so but it is, my suggestion is to apply Social Security to all forms of income first dollar to last and make all direct payments, or entitlements from those funds, then pay for everything else with income taxes that should be progressive.

The thinking here would be that we all pay a certain percentage of what we make no matter how much no matter how it's made toward the safety net that takes care of all of us, then we can fairly and realistically decide what we want that safety net to look like.

The "kingly" things government does war and prisons would be paid mostly by the people who decide such things as to how much war or prisons we need, and the amount available to all would be paid equally by all.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I can see goodlogic in that proposal, and I suppose would support it.

My preference would be to have the "all forms of income" tax handled in a progressive way as well. At least the lowest income should get some break. They should still pay/contributed, just a very small amount based on their ability.

But yes we must stop treating passive income as superior and taxing it less. We must value labor more by taxing it less.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8651) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

That's exactly it, that last line of yours, there is a fundamental problem with taxing work more than birth (in most cases). This ideal that we have to encourage the rich to invest is monstrous, underneath that thought is the concept that the poor will work no matter what because they have no choice but you have to tempt the rich to be part of the economy, with low tax rates, bullshit!

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Exactly, and there are better ways to part the wealthy from their investible idle money.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8651) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Here a wiki piece that is interesting, shows the top 5% have gained at twice the rate as the bottom half, and that wealth inequality in the US gets worse after taxes not better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

NASCAR got to keep it's tax breaks in the deal even if workers did have their taxes increased by 2%.

[-] -2 points by outlawtumor (-162) 1 year ago

This is nothing more than class warfare lunacy.

Have you ever been hired for a job and paid by a poor person??

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yes - it was a job around their home that they could not do. My mom did not let me take the money though.

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Yes, I have been self employed. Started several bootstrapped companies. The rich class won. Their share has gone up 275% since 1980. Your class lost. And you don't care? What's that called?

[-] 1 points by outlawtumor (-162) 1 year ago

You didn't answer my question.

Have you ever been hired for a job and paid by a poor person??

I get that you're bitter and resentful. I got that from your anti-gun discourse before.

You need to take responsibility for your own failures instead of blaming and resenting other people for being successful.

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Yes. I have taken responsibility for all of it, successes and failures and I don't owe anybody anything. I am bitter about people killing our kids. I am resentful when people let their kids find them and shoot each other or themselves.All this, because they aren't confident enough to live like civilized human beings without the capability of mass murder.

You have already made my point. Give it up.

[-] 1 points by outlawtumor (-162) 1 year ago

So I take that as a "NO". Well I'm not surprised. Poor people don't hire people and pay people to work jobs. It's just not how reality works.

Since when has the law of murder ever stopped a madman?

You need to redirect your bitterness into a positive direction. Advocating for the confiscation of law abiding peoples property and the denial of Constitutional rights to people who aren't responsible for that massacre will not change the next massacre from happening.

This course of action you've chosen is indeed madness in and of itself.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

There has been class warfare through all time. We only here it called class warfare when the 99% fights back.

But for the last 30 years while the 1% corp oligarchs bought the peoples govt, rigged the system against us, & perpetrated a massive transfer of wealth from us, (the working class) to them, (the lazy, do nothing fat greedy, selfish theiving 1% corp oligarchs)

They would not be able to do it if not for 1/2 the 99% (repubs?) brainwashed and speaking up for them.

So the question is, how can you advocate against your own class.?

You have no honor!

[-] 0 points by outlawtumor (-162) 1 year ago

brainwashed oligarchs,LMAO is that your favorite Band?

You are too far gone. Leftist Propaganda has claimed another victim.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

But you're the traitorous fool advocating against your own class.

So keep laughing clown,

[-] 1 points by outlawtumor (-162) 1 year ago

No,I'm not the one advocating for the disarming of law abiding fellow Americans. That would be you.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Guns? Whatta moron. we.re talking about 1% corp oligarchs, and you're dodging with your paranoid gunnut crap.?

No one is disarming anyone. Wacko!