Unraveling the job creation issue

by Michael S. Kaplan, published on 2012/08/13 07:01 -04:00, original URI: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/michkap/archive/2012/08/13/10338914.aspx


For the record, this is not a political Blog.

Though I suppose this one posted blog is.

There is no way I want to make this a common thing.

And it goes without saying that Microsoft is not involved....

I just have a question.

Now politics in the US are nice and hyper-polarized, as pictures like this point out:

GOP Translator

Whatever.

This is not really about the diagram.

But a lot of the rhetoric argues between liberals who support the Buffett Rule versus conservatives who argue this would affect job creation and some say investment as well.

Okay, let's momentarily stipulate that both points of view have merit.

Maybe they do, at some level, after all.

Now both job creation and investment in the economy are understandable and potentially measurable things.

So why not just measure them?

Why not hinge the tax rate of capital gains on whether or not jobs are created or the investment in question measurably helps the economy in some way?

How come I have never seen such a plan suggested?

I mean, I doubt anyone would try to publicly defend the person or company that lays off 500 people and hurts the environment willingly as deserving better tax rates than the one that hires 500 and helps build a highway.

And if you accept that, then all you need to do is figure out what rates to use for what.

So let's tax them according to what they accomplish with the money, and pass a bill!

Simple? Of course not. But we are paying our lawmakers to solve tough problems.

Like this one....


Wyatt on 13 Aug 2012 7:48 AM:

"Why not hinge the tax rate of capital gains on whether or not jobs are created or the investment in question measurably helps the economy in some way?

How come I have never seen such a plan suggested?"

Because that's a tax loophole big enough to drive a Mack Truck through.  The accountants and lawyers (with the help of a little congressional lobbying) will figure out a way for most large companies to qualify for the lower tax rate.  The only ones who end up paying the higher rate are going to be the smallish companies that aren't publicly traded.  You essentially create another tier of the same thing your trying to solve, with the richest being able to figure out how to qualify for the lower rate, but those just a bit further down the totem pole won't be able to justify the expense in paperwork.

BuckWoody on 13 Aug 2012 8:05 AM:

Since you're re-posting more hate, you are now part of the problem of further dividing people. Un-subscribing from your RSS, as I do ALL political posts from both sides of the lunacy.

Brian Tkatch on 13 Aug 2012 8:21 AM:

I love ya man, but please, stick to your usual topics. :)

Jeff Minch on 13 Aug 2012 8:56 AM:

What BuckWoody said. You note that politics has become "hyper-polarized" (not really, if you know anything about American history what is going on now is pretty standard fare) and then illustrate it by posting a hyper-polarizing post. -2 on the self-awareness meter there.

John Cowan on 13 Aug 2012 8:56 AM:

Alas, such measurements have hidden assumptions and are inherently political.

WndSks on 13 Aug 2012 9:19 AM:

Buffett is stupid, you can pay extra money if you want to ( www.slate.com/.../uncle_sam_wants_you_or_at_least_your_spare_change.html )

@BuckWoody: Dividing? It is basically a single party system. "Change"?, oh please. At least I LOL'ed at this post but then again I don't have a stick up my a...

cheong00 on 13 Aug 2012 6:44 PM:

Just like traditional "How to measure productivity of developers?" question, once the criterias to be used are guessed, it's most likely to be gamed.

It's very difficult to outsmart intelligent people, especially those with abundant resources.

Michael S. Kaplan on 13 Aug 2012 8:44 PM:

For those who wish to unfollow or stop reading, there are exits on every floor....

Brian Tkatch on 14 Aug 2012 7:47 AM:

@Michael

If we wanted to leave, we would have simply left and not commented. But your blog is awesome--not something we want to leave so quickly.

As a political conservative, i find this blog post (amongst others of yours) to be what i disagree with. Nonetheless, i always appreciate your position on things simply because it is yours. You're not telling us what we want to hear; you're posting what you want to say.  I like that.

This particular post, however, is just political babble. If i wanted to read such stupidities, i'd join facebook or something.

Nonetheless, if you really want me to leave, just post another politically based post or two. :)

Michael S. Kaplan on 14 Aug 2012 8:38 PM:

Actually, my comment is to anyone who wants to go. I just want people in power to start having normal conversations about this stuff. But they won't. It's stupid.

Matthew Slyman on 16 Apr 2013 9:25 AM:

> "So why not just measure them? Why not hinge the tax rate of capital gains on whether or not jobs are created or the investment in question measurably helps the economy in some way?"

At a macroeconomic level, your wish has been granted:

www.slyman.org/.../reaganomics-and-prudent-taxation


go to newer or older post, or back to index or month or day