Question for Limbaugh & Beck: How many jobs will you be creating?

[PA Democrat]

If the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthy are extended (as it looks like they will be at least temporarily) both Limbaugh and Beck will save obscene amounts of money on their tax bills. According to Rep. Alan Grayson, here are some pretty sobering numbers estimating the tax cuts for some of the biggest blowhards on the right:

Rush Limbaugh - $2,689,135.
Glenn Beck - $1,512,352
Sean Hannity - $1,006,352
Bill O’Reilly - $914,352
Sarah Palin - $638,352
Newt Gingrich - $247,352

These same people claim that tax cuts create jobs, so my question is:

How many new jobs will each of them be creating?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-laQ0uvnl5M

[geckosfeet]

1. The same thing that should be asked of every one earning over $250k

who is whining to extend the tax cuts.

If you get it, how many jobs will you 'create'?

[GoCubsGo]

3. No.

They should be asked, "How many jobs have you already created?, since you had these tax cuts for nearly ten years."

[DenverDad]

9. They, nor any of the "2%"

believe that they are actually "job creators". This is just the "snake oil" that they sell to their misinformed base. Now their base can "take to the streets" for another cause that goes against their own best interest.:grr:

[GoCubsGo]

2. The same number they already created over the past ten years

Zero. I can't believe there are people who still buy into that shit.

[KharmaTrain]

4. Not Their Problem...

Hey they got theirs, you go get yours. They think you want to be as rich as they do...in fact they KNOW it.

Actually they've cost a lot of jobs over the years...especially Rushbo. His daily slimefest replaced hundreds of live and local programs and most hate radio stations now are nothing more than a computer and satellite cranking out the bile...no human hands nearby.

[Frustratedlady]

5. In the first place, they shouldn't even be making that kind of money.

Slime pays.

[baldguy]

6. Do drug dealers count?

[blue neen]

7. The only jobs Rush Limbaugh creates are in the Dominican Republic.

Of course, Pfizer might also benefit with the increased sales of Viagra!

[Initech]

16. And oxycotin dealers.

[samplegirl]

8. These are the blowhards that

ruined our country! Yet they get rewarded!!

[MikeFoxtroters]

10. by themselves not many

but if you really think about it the entire base of those who make up the top bracket spend a shitload of money. I'm not necessarily for the extension for this bracket but also see how it could work out in some ways if the people receiving it actually spend the money. For example, say 100 rich people buy a brand spanking new $100,000 yacht. That's $10,000,000 dollars they have put into the economy. In purchasing the yachts they pay for the the workers at the yacht company, the companies that manufacture the parts to build the yachts, the transportation companies that distribute those parts, and the companies that manufacturer the tools necessary to build them. After the purchase they will have recurring costs associated with maintaining the yachts so they will pay a company to do that along with any fees for docking or storage on and off season.

[MikeFoxtroters]

11. I forgot

they will also pay a hefty tax bill at the time of purchase as well as yearly property taxes if the state collects those.

[Yavin4]

12. Highly Fanciful Thinking

Your scenario pre-supposes that wealthy people base their spending decisions on their tax rates, yet economic evidence shows otherwise. If you're already wealthy, then you already have the purchasing power to buy a yacht. You're not going to wait for a 3% cut on your income above $250,000 in order to do it.

Also, your scenario pre-supposes that the rich will immediately spend whatever additional tax cuts that they get instead of investing and saving it neither of which actually stimulates the economy.

It's this kind of childish, fanciful logic that has gotten our economy into the rut that it's currently in.

[MikeFoxtroters]

13. They spend anyways

but when you have an additional couple million available from the tax cut it's an incentive to spend more. Investments put more money into the economy and help get it moving. It helps to eliminate uncertainty in the markets and create stability. Many will probably even invest in the clean energy economy because that's where we're headed and there is a ton of money to be made.

It's not fanciful logic.

[Yavin4]

19. "...an additional couple million available from the tax cut it's an incentive to spend more" WRONG

Dead wrong. If I have a net worth of say, $100 million. I can already buy whatever the hell I want to buy, extended tax cuts or no extended tax cuts. An additional tax cut is not going to make me want a yacht if I didn't want one before hand.

Also, it does nothing to eliminate uncertainty. Why? Because the deficits will run even higher. Again, another bogus argument.

Do yourself a favor and read up on some economics instead of spouting memes that you hear in the big corporate media. Otherwise, you just look foolish.

[MikeFoxtroters]

21. How do you know

Do you have $100 million? My comment on eliminating uncertainty was not about the tax cuts. Reading comprehension > you

What is a meme? Pretty much everything I've said is backed up by most economists.

[Yavin4]

23. Against My Best Instincts, I'm Going To Try

If I have a net worth of over $100 million, then I can pretty much buy whatever consumer good that I want to buy, a yacht, a new fancy sports car, a fancy home, etc. Giving me an additional $100K tax cut is not going to influence my purchasing power at all. In fact, it's pretty insignificant to my consumer spending.

You stated in your post that it would "eliminate uncertainty", and I rebutted that it won't do any such thing because uncertainty would still remain in the form of persistently high deficits.

[MikeFoxtroters]

31. people are not taxed on their net worth

$100k is a lot of additional money for anyone to have and will not go unnoticed by a huge majority of the rich in this country.

On the uncertainty thing.... reading comprehension > you

[Yavin4]

38. Oy! Fine! Let's Say Your Income is $1.25 million A Year

Giving that person an additional $100K is not going to increase their purchasing decisions. It's not going to make them go out and buy something that they would not already be buying now.

[MikeFoxtroters]

39. $1.25 million

in income would provide about an additional $50-$60k over letting the cuts expire depending on a few variables. That's a new BMW right there. Neither of us has any clue how people deal with their personal finances but in general people will and do spend extra money.

[Yavin4]

40. Okay, So, I'm Making $1.25 million A Year

A new BMW at $50K-$60K represents 4% of my total income. Now, let's say that I am a frugal millionaire, and that 4% of my total annual income is just too much for a new car.

The Bush tax cuts increases my take home pay by $100K. How would that trigger my purchase, since the percentage of my income (plus the Bush tax cuts) for that car remains unchanged? That car still remains 4% of my income.

IOW, if I am not buying something BEFORE the tax cuts, then why would I buy something AFTER the tax cuts?

Your argument is absurd.

[MikeFoxtroters]

41. reading comprehension > you

Both of our arguments are complete conjecture therefore they are both absurd.

[Zoeisright]

29. Oh please. What a fucking lie.

Pretty much everything you've said has been DEBUNKED by most economists.

Do a little research before you open your yap.

http://crooksandliars.com/ian-welsh/tax-cuts-rich-create-jobs-outside-us

[MikeFoxtroters]

32. hahahahaha

That's twice today I've been called a liar. Is Ian Welsh an economists or was that just the opinion of a blogger in that quite uninformative piece.

[NickB79]

35. Which is why the past 7 years have been such an economic boom

Oh wait, you mean to tell me we're in the deepest hole since the Great Depression, despite having enacted these tax cuts in 2003?

Well, I'm sure those rich people are gonna get started creating those jobs ANY minute now. Yep, can't be long now. Annnnny minute, yep..........

[MikeFoxtroters]

36. the cuts were started on 2001

and fully implemented in 2003. They created several new brackets and reduced the percentage for everyone. If you actually look at the revenue numbers before and after the tax cuts you will notice that revenue went up. It may have been higher without the cuts but we'll never know. The cuts also did not cause the recession. That was a result of the push to make a record number of people homeowners. It caused an artificial inflation of the housing market that became unsustainable and collapsed. The economy was so heavily betted on housing that it just crumbled with that market and there is nothing that could have prevented it aside from regulations that would have limited the growth of the housing market to head off the creation of the bubble.

[NickB79]

42. But the claim made so far is that the tax cuts will create JOBS

And no great boost to job numbers was seen when the cuts were fully implemented in 2003.

Increasing revenue came from an overheated stock market, not from a burst of new job creation.

[Erose999]

14. Exactly, consumption among the rich remains a constant. They are only consuming a tiny portion of

their incomes under current rates. So any money they gain through tax cuts or bonuses or whatever they will just hoard.

Likewise, if the middle and working classes are saddled with a larger share of the tax burden, they are less likely to purchase the goods and services the wealthy business owners are selling. This causes demand to fall, and businesses to downsize. Giving the business owners a tax cut does nothing to create demand for their goods and services, so there's no incentive for them to grow their businesses. They just hoard the money, rather than hiring new employees. The tax cuts become profit instead of capital.

[MikeFoxtroters]

15. couple it with

an increased cut for the lower and middle class an you will see an incentive for them to spend and create demand for additional product from the companies which in turn will force them to spend and create jobs in order to keep pace with the increase in demand.

[RushIsRot]

28. It worked so well during Bush's eight year bebacle. Let's keep up

the proven failed policies. Fox agrees with you 100%.

[baldguy]

17. The tax cuts have been in place for almost ten years.

During that time, the US has lost more jobs then at any time in it's history. The idea that tax cuts create jobs is a dangerous & deadly fallacy, AS WE HAVE SEEN OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS.

What creates jobs is demand. And gifting $100k to one obscenely wealthy person so they may or may not buy a yacht will never create as much demand - or as many jobs - as giving $1000 each to 100 hard-working middle-class people simply to cover their living expenses.

Also, it's a lie that those obscenely wealthy people wouldn't get a tax cut. They'd still get the same $6500 tax cut as those making up to $250k. It's just that they need to pay their fair share on income OVER $250k - which comes out to about ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS. EACH. PER YEAR. If the Bush tax cuts are continued, we'll have to borrow the $700 billion to pay for it - and your great-grand children will still be paying for it.



http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/the_bush_tax_plan_vs_the_obama.html

[MikeFoxtroters]

22. deficit commission

and Obama already have plans to spend the $700 billion on increased social and stimulus projects so the deficit will be there no matter what. This was stated by the commission and Obama in a meeting they had which is available on the whitehouse site.

[Yavin4]

27. Wow, You Are Wildly Mis-Informed

Any reasonable debate is hopeless. You just want to believe in myths over reality. Ten years of tax cuts and low job creation still does not disabuse you of your fantasies.

[baldguy]

44. Like John Cleese in "The Augument Clinic" sketch.

[Zoeisright]

30. Liar liar, pants on fire.

I think the board you want is to the right. You know, over with the loonies and liars.

[MikeFoxtroters]

33. no, really

in a meeting Obama had with the deficit commission several months ago they were discussing things that they could spend the saved $700 billion on. It's available on the whithouse website, that's where I read it. I make a point to read a lot of stuff there. Obama's speeches, the meetings, press briefings etc...

Go look it up.

[baldguy]

43. Well the reason they did that was because stimulus spending actually *stimulates* the economy.

Tax cuts don't.

[ljm2002]

20. Nice theory...

...but it's not what happens. Or did you miss the last decade or so, during which time those very tax cuts have been in effect, and yet the job situation has not changed for the better. Who'da thunk?

What you are stating is the old Reagan bromide of "trickle down" economic theory. It is just a theory. It has been put to the test, and has demonstrably failed. Time for another theory -- better yet, time for some actions based on empirical data, rather than slavishly adhering to economic theories thought up by elites and benefiting elites.

"In theory, theory and reality are the same; in reality, theory and reality are different."

[MikeFoxtroters]

26. trickle down

how is it trickle down if you cut taxes for everyone? I guess you also forgot about the economic hit the country took on 9/11 and the problems it as well as subsequent legislation caused for the financial situation in the country. I'm not trying to be defensive here but I hear this shit all the time and it's not ever as simple as people want it to be. They look at a small part of the whole and focus there while ignoring all the other things that worked in concert to create the situation.

[baldguy]

45. Because thep top 2% are getting something like 1000x the dollar amount back than the rest of us are.

The rest of us are paying for that tax cut - that massive transfer of wealth upwards - not the über-rich.

[Xenotime]

18. None

[Ghost of Tom Joad]

24. how about Paris Hilton,

[KamaAina]

25. Are you kidding me? Beckkk is singlehandedly propping up the entire gold industry.

:sarcasm:

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

34. At least the Pig Man will be able to afford more runners to fetch him his Oxy. I guess that's

a job. :shrug:

[guitar man]

37. Tax cut or no

I'm sure some workers at Purdue Pharma could credit their continued employment to Pig Boy. :silly: