St. Anthony: Do tax breaks for rich really 'create jobs'?

  • Article by: NEAL ST. ANTHONY , Star Tribune
  • Updated: July 16, 2012 - 11:59 AM

Some big paychecks in recent years have gone to executives at large corporations and hedge funds. Trouble is, they're often most interested in creating wealth by operating with fewer workers.

  • 56
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
hnnr03Jul. 15, 12 1:30 PM

Hear hear! Perhaps we can finally start to turn this thing around! I hardly blame Obama for this though. Give the republicans control of the house, senate or the white house and it will continue to be business as usual. Vote them all out

97
20
pitythefoolsJul. 15, 12 1:32 PM

Demand creates jobs. Businesses and the rich don't add jobs just because they have money laying around. They do when they see increasing demand. 70% of the US economy is consumer demand. The rich are already spending whatever they want. Their having more money will not increase their consumption. If you want to use the tax code to stimulate demand and jobs, then cut all PERSONAL taxes - income, property, everything - and watch demand and jobs soar.

88
20
suzukisvJul. 15, 12 1:37 PM

The needs of 200 million-plus people will always create more jobs than the wants of a few multi- millionaires and billionaires. If we'd quit worrying about the millionaires and what they're going to do and focus on regular folks needs and we'd end up growing our economy by leaps and bounds.

101
9
ericgus55Jul. 15, 12 2:29 PM

I've been wondering why this hasn't been discussed for the last decade. We gave the richest in this nation a tax-cut under President Bush so they could "create jobs," then we watched as unemployment continued to rise, and some out there still continued to call the wealthy "job creators." Giving a thousand people a thousand dollars each will do more for the economy than giving that entire million dollars to one person.

86
12
abuamarJul. 15, 12 4:15 PM

Just look at Craig Hecker the CEO of Supervalu. Last year he had a bonus of 700k dollars and the share holders lost thier shirt

83
6
butle030Jul. 15, 12 4:29 PM

This article is right on point. Add to it that when marginal tax rates are higher, there is actually more personal incentive for business owners to reinvest their money in their business (rather than taking more personal, taxable income) and it's clear that the idea that raising taxes on higher incomes reduces job creation is a completely false premise. It's time for a long-term compromise on appropriate tax and spending levels.

80
5
pitythefoolsJul. 15, 12 5:29 PM

butle030: "Add to it that when marginal tax rates are higher, there is actually more personal incentive for business owners to reinvest their money in their business (rather than taking more personal, taxable income)"

And since interest is tax deductible, but dividends are not, there is more incentive to leverage borrowing to finance expansion rather than selling shares, focusing management on the value of the company rather than short-term share price.

58
3
mn_cameraJul. 15, 12 5:41 PM

Given the decline in tax rates, especially for the upper-income strata, since the Reagan era, you'd think every breathing American, from the tiniest newborn through the senior citizens in the rest homes, would each have six full-time jobs about now, wouldn't you?

71
3
sarahanneJul. 15, 12 8:24 PM

I have yet to hear of an economist who uses how well the top 1% is doing to base their economic forecast it is always on consumer spending. It is hard to believe there is as much flexibility on taxes that is indicated in this article especially compared to what is being lobbied to Congress.

43
2
jim2011beamJul. 15, 1211:16 PM

Sellner is right. Obama failed to back the Republicans into the corner when he failed to support Simpson-Bowles. Obama was too eager to play politics and play the "tax the rich" card. Absolute lack of leadership. Obama doesn't get it. We and our neighbors work hard and pay big tuition for our kids and grandkids so they can be successful - and maybe as a family, two incomes, they might someday make more than $250,000 a year.

22
70

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT