Where’s the evidence that taxing the rich stifles job growth? It can’t be found.

In the U.S., you can not help but have heard about the stalemate in Congress over taxes. The Republicans have held fast to the idea that a tax increase on the rich will stifle job growth. It’s been YEARS they have had a tax break, where are the jobs? NPR discovers this platform is a facade.

GOP Objects To ‘Millionaires Surtax'; Millionaires We Found? Not So Much.

Ever since the idea of the surtax was introduced weeks ago, Republicans in Congress have railed against it, arguing that it is a direct hit on small-business owners and other job creators.

The argument is that many small-business owners report company profits on their individual taxes because of the way their businesses are structured.

NPR attempted to find the people that would be hurt by this tax. They couldn’t. Instead they found business owners that said, “Go on, tax me.”

“If my taxes go up, I have slightly less disposable income, yes,” said Burger, co-owner of CSS International Holdings, a global infrastructure contractor. “But that has nothing to do with what my business does. What my business does is based on the contracts that it wins and the demand for its services.”

Burger says his Michigan-based company is hiring like crazy, and he’d be perfectly willing to pay the surtax.

“It’s only fair that I put back into the system that is the entire reason for my success,” said Burger.

Source: National Public Radio (NPR)

The GOP is basing their positions not on evidence (and logic), but on old-school ideology instead. Do American citizens object to such rationale? I do. It’s nonsense and it’s not going to work.

  4 comments for “Where’s the evidence that taxing the rich stifles job growth? It can’t be found.

  1. dave
    December 10, 2011 at 9:25 AM

    Sharon, this is about as convincing as a creationist article saying advocates of evolution can’t be found, then interviewing a few “creation scientists”.

    You know for a fact that NPR tried to find millionaires that objected to a tax hike, and couldn’t? NPR didn’t even really claim that. They found a few businessmen who have voted democrat in the past, and they have democratic views. Shocker.

    As for “logic”:

    1) If you take money away from someone who is hiring, they can hire less. That’s pretty obvious.

    2) Why are there groups then protesting tax increases? If everyone welcomed them, who does the left think is funding the effort?

    Really, i expect you to next post at article about how obvious it is that powerbalance bands work.

  2. Massachusetts
    December 10, 2011 at 2:40 PM

    At times in our history with much higher tax rates, the economy and job creation were in over drive, like the 50s and 60s. I haven’t seen anything convincing that higher taxes lead to fewer jobs to bear out your point (1). If you have an actual study or economic graph please share it with us, to prove your theory with data. I understand that it sounds like a logical connection, but it just doesn’t seem to be what’s happening. Companies with money are risk averse and are simply sitting on that money.

    Regarding point number (2), I would say that the left believes wealthy big business interests are funding the effort predominantly, like the Koch brothers for example. I don’t know how accurate that is but I believe it’s a prevailing view. The Koch brothers, for example, certainly donate a lot to conservative political causes and politicians: http://www.followthemoney.org/database/topcontributor.phtml?u=1457

  3. Massachusetts
    December 10, 2011 at 2:44 PM

    Also, the Bush tax cuts weren’t in affect when Clinton was in office, but we had a balanced budget that was squandered under the following republican administration. I find that interesting. I suggest we look upon the wisdom of that era, which included reasonable tax policies (like super wealthy people and companies paying a bit more, when they make it) AND spending cuts, including super bloated military expenditures that don’t benefit our troops or our national security, in light of current threats, like terrorism.

  4. dave
    December 10, 2011 at 3:17 PM

    Well, maybe i wasn’t clear on point #2. One of the basic talking points of the left is that the rich are campaigning against the interestes of everyone else to keep tax rates down. This article claims they couldn’t find any rich people who want lower ( or the current ) tax rates. You propose that koch brothers are at the root of it. Ok, did they talk to, or find quote by the koch brothers?

    I find the claim of the article to be so patently absurd that i don’t see how any thinking person could take it seriously. Just basic logic: how would economic conservatives ever get elected if *no one*, or only two rich brothers, actually held that viewpoint?

Comments are closed.