Show me a pig making a living wage and I'll agree. However all entrepreneurs are consumers as well and typically start off as a consumer seeing an opportunity that could be filled. Consumers dictate what products make it or flop. Entrepreneurs must cater to consumers or fail.

The more money a consumer has in his bank account after basic living expenses, the more he/she will spend on clothes, travel, electronics, etc. Does that not in turn help the entrepreneur? I don't agree that businesses should be taxes to death but neither should the average salary worker. I would say that consumers can create a demand for a product that would require a business to hire more people to fill that demand but yes, the initial risk is all on the entrepreneur. I didn't watch the video, I just took issue with the consumer being looked down upon. They are a very vital part of the process.

I think there is a lot more to comparing those two states than just taxes.

For starters cost of living and, for that matter, cost of just about everything, is higher in California than in Texas. Also Texas has all that oil revenue and jobs which is very stable.

As for the unemployment always being higher in California. That simply isn't the case. If you look at the number between 1990 and 2008 they are pretty comparable. Other than a 3 year period from 82-85 California's unemployment rate tends to hover between 5-6.8%. Texas is pretty comparable with most years falling somewhere between 5-8%. In 2008 when the recession hit they both went way up.

Today the unemployment rate in Texas is 6.9%. Which is lower than the national average of 8.1%, but the state of Washington which also doesn't have a state income tax is 8.1%. For that matter Nevada has no income tax and they have the highest unemployment rate in the nation at 11.7%.

To me this proves that there is a lot more to unemployment rate than just taxes. . .well, at least just income taxes.

The speaker is talking about cause and effect. He begins by basically arguing that consumers cause new businesses to come into existence. My point, as stated several times now is simply that consumers do not cause a new business to come into existence. Someone willing to take the risk causes a business to come into existence. Of course its success is dependent on consumers. But consumers don't cause a new company to suddenly materialize and jobs to magically materialize and for a company to be successful and grow. With respect to the tax argument, reducing an entrepreneurs incentive to create a new business in my view can't possible be argued to be an irrelevant factor to the creation of jobs as the speaker is trying to argue.

And I agree with you. Payroll taxes are retarded. Poor people get fucked at every turn. I like the idea of a sales tax or flat tax. Again, taxes heavily incentivize people to work less (anyone that's looked at a paycheck after working substantial overtime has learned that lesson). The taxes paid on overtime wages is obscene. But also irrelevant to the speakers point.

I'm not looking down on consumers. Simply saying that a consumer does not cause a new business to come into existence... particularly with respect to the speakers argument about taxes not affecting the creation of new business.

As someone who has started quite a few companies and failed quite a few times, I personally take issue with the idea that "businesses will just happen and consumers create jobs" while making the argument that you can take away incentives to entrepreneurs to create new companies and it won't affect job creation. Someone has to be willing to man up and take the risks and the tax argument is a big part in the risk vs. reward equation.

Of course there are many factors involved. As you said, stuff costs more in California. Why? Most "stuff" is imported via the port of LA and trucked to Texas and other states, so it should cost LESS in California than eslsewhere. Why must businesses in California charge more for the same items? The cost of dealing with hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations might be one reason. The fact that California companies have to pay 8.84% tax, while Texas companies pay 0%-1%, certainly means California companies have to charge more in order to start afloat.

What I would love to know is, what sector the Democrats created those jobs in? Here in Canada.. our Liberals love to create jobs, they just happen to be Government jobs, which cost us more.

The key isn't to tax the Rich .. or the Middle Class.. or the poor. Get rid of Government inefficiency, which allows you to lower taxes across the board, and give the people the choice on what to do with their money. That's how the economy grows.

So why did you open a webcam business in Russia and want to bring them to Czech to be shot. Was that generating employment in the US?

So why does the US have an unemployment problem?

I actually agree that cutting some taxes will result in more money being spent in the US. Those who are at the lower end of the tax spectrum, because they won't spend it abroad, invest the money abroad, bank it in the Caymans, take holidays over seas, buy fancy imported cars, etc. The lower end of the spectrum will spend their extra money in local shops and businesses, generating more employment.

The 1% will do all they can to pay as little as possible, they employ armies of Tax Accountants and Lawyers whose sole job is to cut their clients tax bill. The lower end of the tax paying spectrum don't have that opportunity. In fact putting more money in their pockets creates more consumers with more money to spend.

Cutting taxes in one State works for that State, businesses move there.

Robbie if taxes were zero, workers in the Third World would still be more attractive than workers in the US. Have you been to the Third World and seen the conditions they live in? Conditions worse than anyone in the States would live in. Why do you think they try to get out?

The biggest reason is the Third World has a lot of poor people who can't afford to buy what they produce and a very very tiny rich, who don't buy goods manufactured there. This goes for most Third World Countries. They simply don't have enough people in the middle consuming goods.

The story I read said that these jobs were private sector jobs.

In the article at the bottom they say that during that same time period democrats added 6.3 million government jobs while Republicans added 7.1 million. When broken down by month (since republicans had more time in the white house) it was 22K new government jobs per month for the republicans and 21K for the democrats.

We aren't talking about foreign corporations, operating in foreign tax jurisdictions are we? In addition to everything else you "forgot" with respect to my time with you, did you also forget that I set up a Czech company while I was there? Eva gave me the lawyer to call from your own studio with you standing there.

On a side note...

My goal as a human being is to make stupidity painful. That's what I plan to leave behind. Right now, your stupidity is just painful for everyone that's exposed to it. I feel like there is a real chance to discourage people like you from talking by making your own stupidity painful only for you.

I think that if I can pull that off, i'll be celebrated and remembered for centuries.

I won't for a second argue that California isn't over taxed and that there isn't a ton of bullshit government bureaucracy that leads to higher prices. However, some of the pricing simply has to do with demand. Houses are so expensive because. . . well. . . they can be. There are so many people that there is a wider market for selling a house so you can charge more. At the height of the housing bubble my aunt who lives in Downey (a suburb of LA) had Realtors knocking on her door every week wanting to sell her house. It was an average size 3 bedroom home (one of the rooms was very small) with a very small back yard and they were telling her she could get 600-700K for the house because it was in a good neighborhood. When you have more potential customers you can charge more for things. Of course, if you are poor, this fucks you over pretty badly.

I'm sure much of the regulatory crap and taxes in California plays a part in their unemployment rate. My point in all of this is that you can't look at just taxes and and say that they are the reason for unemployment. They can play a roll, but a state like Vermont has one of the highest state income tax rates, yet it has one of the lowest unemployment rates while Nevada has no state income tax and has the highest unemployment rate. There clearly is much more to the equation.

No we are talking about American entrepreneurs exporting jobs. Whether you had a foreign corporation, operating in the foreign tax jurisdiction, if you're an American entrepreneur it illustrates how easily they will ship jobs and money out of the US. What ever the tax situation.

Yes I forgot who you were and why you came to see me. That's the impression you made on me.

So your new business, where is it based. Is it a foreign corporation, operating in the foreign tax jurisdiction?

And answer the other questions or you'll look stupid dodging them.

Here's the problem. Look at the last 12 years.

Taxes fell and the debt got bigger, under who?

And as you can see tax revenues have fallen slightly and spending has escalated. And I will say it again. Without very careful planning, just cutting taxes in the hope that American entrepreneurs will create wealth is risky. Because it will mean consumers spending less in the US.

American entrepreneurs can't sell squat if people don't have jobs. If the US cuts taxes it means people lose jobs or the US goes further into debt. On the gamble American entrepreneurs will make up for the missing revenue.

So what comes first?

With economic employment, when people make stuff, they pay taxes and create good stuff, so that's good for economy and the budget. Government jobs, regulators and the like, CONSUME taxes and INTERFERE with making stuff, so in a macro economic sense government jobs are negative jobs. Net employment (gainful employment) = productive private sector jobs - consumptive government jobs.

You're talking about exporting jobs because you're insane. It has nothing to do with the conversation. The conversation is about tax burden as it relates to job creation.

And "America" has little to do with the conversation either, as these are basic principles of economics being discussed.

BTW... you didn't "forget" i was there Paul. You denied it because I was embarrassing you. You got owned in epic fashion. Stop being a pussy about it.

Sorry, but it could disagree with his logic at ALL in that video, and politics have nothing to do with it.

If you want to take the time to really understand the issue, I would suggest this book. It's 50 years old and yet all of the principles continue to hold up perfectly. A fairly easy read, and would that every adult should read at some point.

http://www.freelythinking.com/eioneel.jpg

without those programmed portals we wouldn't have many of the things we have today.

Microsoft run with just Bill Gates, Paul Allen and a few others would never grow to where it is now without a bunch of portals cranking out code and making products. Large stores that offer a lot of products for sale and convenient shopping hours don't exist without a lot of portals to work there and help the store run. Nevermind the movies you enjoy watching, the car you like driving, the house you enjoy living in all likely made with the help of many portals. Even the food you eat was likely packaged and shipped to you and sold to you by a bunch of portals.

In this perfect society can I have a 15 inch dick and do nothing but relax, drink high quality whiskeys and bang models? If so I am onboard :thumbsup

Any entrepreneur can slop pigs.

all Americans make at least a living wage, otherwise they'd be dead

It only works if there is a left and a right wing.

If taxes are high you invest to lower your tax bill. (Knowing it will go down later)
Taxes are still paid but more as a income tax from jobs created.
The workforce grows and so does the salary.
Costs go up, demands for higher salaries go up and now you lost the ability to compete against low salary countries.
If taxes go down you take out more profits.
More profits to you = less salaries paid = job count goes down.
Salaries goes down as the unemployment goes up and your ability to compete or reinvest goes up.
If you remove unemployment benefits and income taxes and only had sales and import /export taxes the economy would blossom.

Only "free" services that should be provided should be education and health care

Nice cut and paste. Here's my response:

Fuck you! You can't expend the energy to formulate an opinion? Fuck you!



GFY is just a joke of a cut and paste / Youtube embed site now. Fuck you.

RedRob, I'm not wasting any time watching that fucking asshole walk around on stage and jimmer jammer his fucking nonesene.

So, fuck you!

Stop being stupid. Job creation only means job creation in the West. Look at where your iPad is made. Then everything else around you, these are created job and how many of them in the West?

US taxes are mostly spent in the US employing people. Do you think you will create more consumers by putting them out of work?

What no one will answer is where do the deficits created by tax cuts come from?

More borrowing or spending cuts?

Borrowing more is easy, spending cuts isn't. So if you think that's the best route, you have to say where the spending is cut.

Paul, you're not a smart person. This is not my personal view. This is a very common view shared by everyone who ends up being exposed to your retarded rants. It's a pretty hard thing for you to deny being that everyone expresses view this to you anytime you say almost anything.

I'm not going to waste my time being baited into a no win conversation with a retarded baboon believing himself capable of debating the complexities of quantum mechanics.