I would certainly hope Congress is smart enough to prevent the tax increase from kicking in.

 

Hope, not expect.

Sorry, it goes the other way. The "Bush taxcuts" expire this year. And the budget submitted to Congress by the WH recently called for them to expire.

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-budget-lets-bush-tax-cuts-expire-2010-02-01

 

 

So unless Congress gets its act together and comes together in a veto proof manner there will be a massive tax increase this year.

 

As for Congress 'working together' - look at this weekend and yesterday. Harry Reid killed the bi-partisan, WH supported jobs bill in an abrupt and unilateral action. Why? So that they could 'start over'. Why? Because the Republicans would look good if it passed. So it was scuttled for pure political reasons.

 

Then on Monday Bayh announces he will not run for his seat again. With only 4 days to find a replacement and he does not tell Reid or Obama of his decision prior to the announcement. Was it a direct relationship to Reids pure political gamesmanship on a bill that is supposed to help Americans? Who knows. But the timing and circumstances suggest the two actions are related.

 

Haven't we been down the road with these Bush tax cuts? How would extending them create jobs? What we have found is that it simply made the rich richer. There was no trickle down. Are you a supply side fan as well as the Invisible Hand?

Haven't we been down the road with these Bush tax cuts? How would extending them create jobs? What we have found is that it simply made the rich richer. There was no trickle down. Are you a supply side fan as well as the Invisible Hand?

 

The only way to create jobs is if companies have an increased chance to make money. Businesses do not hire people without the likelihood of profit. The way to those profits are reached through a couple of means. Lower taxes, meaning government taking less from business. Increased productivity which means lower costs for the business. Increased sales/profitability, which means either employees working smarter/harder or price of product going up vs. costs to produce. Expense reduction, employing technology, salary cuts, or sourcing raw materials for less cost, etc.

 

What is your solution???

 

Increasing taxes on those that do the employing... That will get them hiring for sure...:ohbrother:

You do know that there have been several tax cuts in the last year don't you. You also know that people are keeping their money and not spending don't you.

 

More money is good, but jobs are still the thing. Until more people are working, the people who have jobs are paying off bills and saving whatever they have left.

What tax cuts are you talking about? Not saying there hasn't been but if there has I was unware of them.

 

Haven't we been down the road with these Bush tax cuts? How would extending them create jobs? What we have found is that it simply made the rich richer. There was no trickle down. Are you a supply side fan as well as the Invisible Hand?

The Bush tax cuts put money in everyone's pocket. You can once again vilify the rich but fact is the rich are the ones that create jobs. They are the ones that can bring us out of this. If Obama chooses to take more of their money there may be no end in sight to this. Where's the incentive to invest and take risk if the feds are just going to take a bigger piece of your pie? What most on the left fail to mention is while the rich get richer so do most everyone else.

Businesses do not hire people without the likelihood of profit.

TRUTH... :thumb:

Haven't we been down the road with these Bush tax cuts? How would extending them create jobs? What we have found is that it simply made the rich richer. There was no trickle down. Are you a supply side fan as well as the Invisible Hand?

 

You have to be a supply sider if you believe in free-market CAPITAL based economics. Taxes a) remove available capital from the market and b) remove spending money from the masses. The 'rich' will not simply stash increased capital in a mattress. They will look for ways to put it to work. They will even put some it 'at risk' and fund things they otherwise would not. This is what venture capital companies do. This is the life blood of new companies. These new companies replace older, declining companies and are the birth place of jobs overall. Yet IPOs are way down since their highs.

 

I work for a large company. Even when the economy returns the fundementals will not be the same as they were 3 years ago. Automation, off-shoring, etc. have premanantly cut the workforce and it will not fully return even in a sharp rebound. So new companies are the key. Having worked with VC companies I know their plans usually call for 6 months to a year of losses before they make their first dime. So you better have a good capital reserve to start a high tech or high capital company. But as of now they are not being formed at a rate needed to create a recovery.

 

What happens when rich people do not have 'play money' to fund risky new companies? Here is a sample:

 

 

 

People here are asking when will the turn around occur. I have said look at the NFP. That NFP is likely a lagging indicator. I would add to that look at IPO filings.

Haven't we been down the road with these Bush tax cuts? How would extending them create jobs? What we have found is that it simply made the rich richer. There was no trickle down. Are you a supply side fan as well as the Invisible Hand?

 

Wrong, those tax cuts benefited every taxpayer bracket. In fact, some non taxpayers also benefited. I remember one friend I did a calculation for and he and his wife saved about $3700 in taxes from the prior tax laws before the Bush tax cuts. This was a two earner family making about $67000 at the time. Not exactly rich. Do you think a family in this same situation now could afford to lose $300 per month income?

 

 

Some people will use that extra money to make purchases as shown in other threads where people talked about how they were using their refunds. That can help keep businesses running or even expand.

You have to be a supply sider if you believe in free-market CAPITAL based economics. Taxes a) remove available capital from the market and b) remove spending money from the masses. The 'rich' will not simply stash increased capital in a mattress. They will look for ways to put it to work. They will even put some it 'at risk' and fund things they otherwise would not. This is what venture capital companies do. This is the life blood of new companies. These new companies replace older, declining companies and are the birth place of jobs overall. Yet IPOs are way down since their highs.

 

I work for a large company. Even when the economy returns the fundementals will not be the same as they were 3 years ago. Automation, off-shoring, etc. have premanantly cut the workforce and it will not fully return even in a sharp rebound. So new companies are the key. Having worked with VC companies I know their plans usually call for 6 months to a year of losses before they make their first dime. So you better have a good capital reserve to start a high tech or high capital company. But as of now they are not being formed at a rate needed to create a recovery.

 

What happens when rich people do not have 'play money' to fund risky new companies? Here is a sample:

 

 

 

People here are asking when will the turn around occur. I have said look at the NFP. That NFP is likely a lagging indicator. I would add to that look at IPO filings.

 

Your graph seems to show that prior to the Bush tax cuts things were going a whole lot better, and they have not really improved since the cuts.

For anybody to suggest that the tax cuts helped our economy . . . you are simply not living in the same system I am. The only real good decade we have had since i have been alive is the 90s. The 80s brought a great deal of debt, the 00s brought a great deal of debt. Both were exemplified by republican tax cuts.

FWIW I am certainly okay with tax INCENTIVES to create jobs, but just simply lowering the marginal rate . . . that increases profits, not jobs.

Your graph seems to show that prior to the Bush tax cuts things were going a whole lot better, and they have not really improved since the cuts.

 

IPOs took a dive starting in 2001. Remember what happened in 2001 around September?

IPOs took a dive starting in 2001. Remember what happened in 2001 around September?

 

So the fear of terrorism has caused people to quit starting jobs . . . wow Osama won, Osama won.

 

I also remember who came into office in 2001 right around January.

FWIW I am certainly okay with tax INCENTIVES to create jobs, but just simply lowering the marginal rate . . . that increases profits, not jobs.

 

Neither of you posts have addressed the specific tax situation I gave you. Do you think this couple can now afford making do on $300 a month less?

 

I don't think you truly understand the effects of the tax cuts, both in the 00's and in the 80's and what the economy would have done without them.

 

I do agree on the debt increase but that is a different topic than tax cuts that must include the increased spending and entitlements.

Your graph seems to show that prior to the Bush tax cuts things were going a whole lot better, and they have not really improved since the cuts.

 

Actually, overall record amount of capital raised for IPOs in 2006 (3 years after the cuts).

 

 

http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2007/01/2006_was_kinda.html

 

In a nutshell, the just-completed year was the biggest ever for global IPOs, at least by dollars generated. Granted, if you net out the $22-billion ICBC IPO then 2000 ends up just ahead of 2006, but it's still been a remarkable IPO recovery.

 

I had not looked it up before....but I knew Adam would not fail me. The rich used their increased capital to fund new IPOs. Those new companies created jobs. Some lasted long term, some did not and people had to find new jobs again. But that is how a vibrant economy works.

Actually, overall record amount of capital raised for IPOs in 2006 (3 years after the cuts).

 

 

http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2007/01/2006_was_kinda.html

 

In a nutshell, the just-completed year was the biggest ever for global IPOs, at least by dollars generated. Granted, if you net out the $22-billion ICBC IPO then 2000 ends up just ahead of 2006, but it's still been a remarkable IPO recovery.

 

I had not looked it up before....but I knew Adam would not fail me. The rich used their increased capital to fund new IPOs. Those new companies created jobs. Some lasted long term, some did not and people had to find new jobs again. But that is how a vibrant economy works.

 

2 different graphs. one is capital raised for IPOs and the other is IPOs. So which argument are you making? First you imply that IPOs stink in 2008 and then come back and argue that they are doing really well. Amazing what economists can do graphs. Either they were doing well or they weren't. Both of your arguments cannot be correct.