Shared publicly  - 
The Myth of Job Creators

This talk was controversial enough to offend wealthy attendees of TED. So TED decided not to publish it.

More info on the TED censorship here:
Neil Paterson's profile photoMichael Woelk's profile photoJoseph Rizzo's profile photoDan Greve's profile photo
Great speech! Should not be a controversial topic as this is rather straight forward if you think about it for a second
offended people probably left half way thru the speech.
This has way too much logic and common sense to resonate with some people ;-)
Steve Mayne
FOX News Blowhard: BLAH BLAH BLAH 1%. BLACK BLAH BLAH job creators.

Me: Excuse me? What did you just call them?

FNB: Job creators. That's what they--

Me: What's the goal of a CEO or corporation?

FNB: To create jobs.

Me: It's to create profit. You know that. So does everyone out there. That's what capitalism is all about. That's Business 101, isn't it? I ask because I've never taken Business 101.

FNB: Yes, but when you create profit, you create jobs. Pinhead.

Me: Not necessarily. If to create profit, a CEO has to elminate jobs, or ship them overseas, he'll do that. In a heartbeat. That's part of what's been going on for the last 30 years. So why do you call them job creators?

FNB: BLAH BLAH socialism BLAH BLAH Obama BLAH BLAH Jimmy Carter.

Me: You call them 'job creators' because it's politically expedient to do so in a time of high unemployment. But it's a lie. You know it's a lie. And so does everyone watching.
This speech has not been published because "too boring" and because it lacked a scientific approach. The author then proceeded to accuse the guys who select TED talks to be published, saying they are elitists and such: "HURR FIGHT THE POWER, TED SUX LOOK AT HOW BIASED THEY ARE, THEY DEFEND THE INTERESTS OF THE 1% DURR DURR

This guy is a faggot, his talk makes almost no sense and he can't speak in public. Anyway he's a good flamer and he got what he wanted: attention. He just scammed you and let you think you were "fighting for the poors" while, actually, you were just advertising him.
What is interesting is the extent to which the 1% are driven by sexual addiction, they have to make incredibly more than anyone else often to feed a massive appetite for sex and drugs.
+Simone Robutti "Too boring"? The audience enjoyed it. I found it interesting. And there are many TED talks that "lack a scientific approach".

TED isn't a scientific conference. It is about "ideas worth spreading". Apparently, so long as the ideas do not cause the financiers distaste.
+Koushik Dutta Ideas without a foundation of truth are ideas not worth spreading, otherwise it's just propaganda.
+Simone Robutti Which part was he dishonest about?

1. Capitalists don't create jobs, unless they absolutely have to. They will also cut and ship jobs overseas to raise profits. We see this all the time in the USA.
This is a truth. 

2. They only need to create jobs if there is an overwhelming consumer demand that requires additional labor to be hired. Why would they unnecessarily hire people and lower profits?
This is a truth.

3. Consumer demand comes from the middle class having money. 
This is a truth.

I'm having a hard time understanding why you are saying there is no foundation of truth in his talk.

Let's actually use Apple as a use case for what he was arguing for the point above:

Apple is the most valuable company in the world.

1. Even being ridiculously profitable, Apple is laying off workers in Apple stores:

2. Apple gets temporary hires for Apple Stores in advance for new product launches, to predict consumer demand.

3. Are the few rich people buying millions of iPhones? No. Millions of middle class people are buying millions of iPhones.
Wow, somebody wants me to feel sorry for a One Percenter because this will fight the One Percent because he's all about fighting the One Percent. Which he's part of.

Hey, where's Sarah Silverman's talk? They must have censored that one because they hate women and love rape at TED!
Here is a TED curator's blog post on the matter (which is linked to in the Forbes article I just commented about):

Choice quote: "The talk tapped into a really important and timely issue. But it framed the issue in a way that was explicitly partisan. ... And it included a number of arguments that were unconvincing, even to those of us who supported his overall stance..."
+Robert Belcher Yeah, as the Forbes article stated, his chart made me double take, since it made no sense.
I'm having a hard time discounting his entire argument, just because of a goofy chart though.
"Nice move. Trash the rich in front of the rich (a practice I fully support) but then react to rejection like a spoiled schoolkid. "


Anyway, there's all the attention I'll pay TED talks this year.
The argument against the talk was never that it wasn't about an important subject, or that it didn't make any good points at all; simply that it was sufficiently flawed that TED decided not to post it. Just because it's about an important subject doesn't mean they're going to make an exception and lower the bar. It just means someone else needs to come along and give the subject a proper treatment!
Yeah, the version of the story where Hanauer threw a fit and hired people to spin the rejection into press, anyway, sounds way more likely. 

And I'm watching his talk. I sort of get what he means with the "circle of life" thing, but saying companies don't create jobs and hiring more people is "only a last resort"...those are just daffy. Uh, hiring more people is one of the first steps to being a company. And then one of the second steps to being a bigger company. And then...

The whole "slash taxes at the top and kill business regulations and everybody gets trickled down on" concept remains propaganda, though, whatever this guy says about it.
BTW, I just looked up Pacific Coast Feather Company, the family business where Hanauer got his start, and of which he's still CEO.

They import all their trade goods from China, these days. Have forever. 
"don't accept for a second that firms want to hire, it's a vector to earn more "

You do realize that your second statement negates the first, right? Maybe not. You might as well say that nobody really wants a job, they just want to earn more. 
Unions are "gleaned?" Do you even know what "glean" means? It means to go through the fields after the farmer is done with them and pick up the scraps. 
It isn't someone else's responsibility to create a job for you to occupy, but rather your responsibility to offer talent / skills of sufficient value to entice someone to hire you. This is more class warfare, "You didn't build that" rhetoric that really does a disservice to our country.
No, you don't know the meaning of "glean," because gleaning was an early, theocratic form of welfare for the poor. Workers don't glean, they help harvest and get paid for it. The gleaners come in after, because God said you have to leave a little grain for the hungry. 

That's not even a good metaphor, never mind making no practical sense. 

Whether the farmer is a cheat and a bastard or not is a whole other matter. 
Oh no, I got it, you're a subject matter expert. You should do a TED talk. 
Sure, and that's because anybody who runs a business is a soulless demon, and the poorer you are, the holier you are. 
So in other words, Capitalists and the wealthy didn't really create jobs, saying they do was just a defensive argument to keep their tax rates low???
This is sensationalism, not science, nor economics. I understand why TED did not post it.
Anyway, now I'm reading this other total bullshit about a guy who says he recovered the memory of his mom almost aborting him, and so ABORTION IS WRONG. It's way funnier. 
Seems to be a lot of talk on taxing or not taxing the rich 1%. Tax needs to be cut across the board and more people need to be tax exempt. The threshold before paying tax must be raised. Small ma &pa businesses need a very low tax rate too.
+Simone Robutti - how do you know the speakers sexual orientation? How fucking DARE you use the word "faggot" in a post. Who do you think you are? I note that you have no face picture on your profile, is this because you are too "ugly"?
LOL, this I have to share:
underwater and, strangely, breathing while submerged—an amniotic, prenatal “memory”? Once, I told a psychiatrist how I felt “trapped” and panicky in close relationships with women. Fears of death had dogged me, and a pervasive, empty sense of not belonging anywhere."
"I remembered my recurrent nightmare of swimming frantically 

Wow, you know why he has problems with close romantic relationships, fears death, and has a pervasive sense of "not belonging?" Abortion! NO ONE ELSE FEELS THOSE THINGS. 
this proves that Milton Friedman philosophy on economy sucks big time
He didn't convince me of anything. He thinks that the government can make investments to help the middle class better than investors can.  Isn't in the best interest of business owners to create products and services that benefit people.  From what I can tell, the interest of the government is to make as many people dependent on them as possible.
I dunno about "need the rich." I don't even know if we need companies or jobs, really, in the long run. In fact, I freaking hate jobs, have been unemployed for a while and am starting to have some success selling writing, and if I can do that an never have a job again, boy am I doing that. 

I can't stand TED, I never watch those things, because every one I've watched has been either culty or completely wrong about stuff. I watched this one by a woman who had zero expertise except that she wrote a popular book on How To Spot a Liar and...I don't think she was actually lying, is about the best I could say for that. Anyway, I'm pretty good at spotting liars, and she had everything backward, pretty much. I didn't get the sense she'd ever even played poker, certainly.  

But...this guy's talking out of his ass, and the I Was Censored story from a few months ago we're all arguing about just seems like PR spin to me. 

And I'm arguing about it, which means I'm playing into the spin, and I'm the dumbest one of all. 
Some think the federal government has too much power and that power should be shifted back to the states. Instead of the feds making one-size fits all regulations, let each state figure out what works best for that state.

And I thought I knew which party believed that. But with these latest politic ads, it's backwards. These guys (both sides!) will spin whatever they can to make the other side look bad, even if in reality the stance they're opposing aligns with their ideals.

And the worst part is, the campaigns hide behind SuperPACs... Unaccountable to the campaigns and unaccountable to the candidates.

#politics #election2012
Thank you Koushik Dutta ... in my view the speaker understands the mechanics of the real economy, and I am most grateful to you for giving me the opportunity to see this. I was a corporate CFO for a number of years and know the decision making cycle in the company. When the market goes down profits go down and then pink slips go up. To make more profit pink slips for American workers and outsource the work to the cheapest in the world. Race to the bottom. Again ... thank you.
What can the government invest in that will give the middle class money to spend? Our government screws up everything like: Medicare, Social Security, the U.S Post Service, Amtrak, GSA, and other services and agencies. Why should they be trusted with money?
I am definitely resharing this! I've been saying it for at least three years now. He said it better though.
Hi Robert,
Other than being a Property related Solutions provider, am a Management(Recruitment)Consultant too. As u already know, we cater to vacancies that exist in companies. What is important is that I sense an obvious frustration about the Job Market in the majority of the general public. So , you are not alone. Further, you are obviously happy about your writing skills, because it allows you to be flexi about time and effort and no boss can play football with your feelings. Very soon , you shall be known because of your writing Robert. Good for you!                                                                                                                                        Hi there Mike McDermott,
Is it the Egg versus the Chicken question? You would agree that growth is a partnership. Businessmen move into avenues or 'Opportunities' created by the Government. I am sure  that the business environment will improve, albeit at a snails pace, & shall soon allow businessmen to think out Demand based solutions that would help churn money. 
What a bunch of democratic/socialist crap.When I started my own business I knew up front that I would need at least 3 to 5 people to help me make my business successful before I made a profit.What your selling and the need in the consumer markets supports those jobs and drives the expansion of a successful business
(more jobs).Someone has to create a job to make a product before it can be consumed whether it be 1 person or more.We need to lower taxes across the board for everyone, stop the huge union payouts,decrease the amount of personnel at the state and federal levels.Make lobbying illegal.I can go on and on.Another Obama trickster trying run a Jedi Mind Trick on everyone.
This talk is propaganda. It's a narrow and simplified view on a complex interaction between supply, demand and government. Government lies every time it claims to create a new tax only for the rich. Income tax was originally only supposed to be for the rich. The vast majority of tax collected by government are from the middle class. There are not enough rich people to offset the huge amounts collected from the middle class. Do you pay estate tax? Do you pay capital gains tax? Originally sold as only for the rich. You can bet that any new tax only for the rich will make its way to lucrative middle class bracket sooner rather than later. And that is only taxes. The biggest impediment to jobs is the cost of hiring people. Most jobs are created in the small to medium sized businesses. To create a job, a business has to make or expect to make enough money to cover the cost of the employee and make a profit.

Profit is the driver for all voluntary labour. If you were not paid for your effort, you would not work unless forced to by threats of violence. Every single person who works for money is a capitalist. It sickens me that the basis of all voluntary economic activity is so vilified. The alternatives to capitalism is subsistence or slavery. If that's what you want, God help us all.
Capitalism equals more choice. It demands efficiency as mentioned, but efficiency lowers the bar for start-ups. Start-ups are the job, choice, and opportunity creators.
It is easy for an existing millionaire to say tax the rich because they have already gotten rich because of the existing system. Taxing the Rich will not create enough revenue to fix our government's spending problems. What we need are flat taxes which are lower for most than what we effectively pay now, and we need far less government spending and involvement in our economy.
Taxing the Rich more will not fix our economy. Taxing everyone less and less spending and waste by the government will.
taxing the rich more will not fix our economy.Taxing everyone less and spending and waste by the gover
I agree with Kenneth; every dollar taxed away from Joe-- whether he's wealthy or not-- is making the assumption that Fred, career politician thousands of miles away, knows how to maximize Joe's utility better than Joe does. That's almost never true.

Low taxes across the board are preferable. And if you want fairness, implement either a consumption tax, or failing that as flat of an income tax as possible.

What's not fair is making our current tax code even more progressive.
How the rich believe that they are the job creators is beyond me.  Unemployment has shot up ever since lowering the tax rate on the rich.  Not funding two wars didn't help either.  The rich don't create jobs.... like the man says, it's the capitalists' last resort to secure his/her wealth.
Kenneth Smith is right.  In fact, taxing the rich has led quite a few, even rich Democrats, to renounce their US citizenship to avoid exorbitant taxes.  You can't tax people who are no longer American citizens, so if you think that taxing the rich will solve our economic woes, think again.  We got by with far, far less government spending as recently as the '80s.  Let's slash government spending (and regulations) and restore our economy to health.
+Bruce Walker taxes have never been lower, so where are all of the jobs?  Oh right we have a Democrat in the White House.  But Clinton, a Democrat, gave us our biggest Bull Market and only the top 1% made any money in the last Bubble Market when taxes were lower.  Hmm.  Taxes were higher under Clinton too.  Yet we had huge job creation.  
Bruce, I think your logic is actually Dogma written by celebrities on TV and radio.  Don't forget they get paid no matter what the economy does and none of these conservative priests inject any more money into the economy than the liberal priests on MSNBC.
critic to the capitalist sistem pointed to the fact that a sistem designed for everyone to care privately of their own business cannot be sustained. He anticipated that this way of producing goods, socially, will always generate overproduction crisis. Because the goods production it´s not aiming to fulfill the people needs, it´s aiming to get profit of them. And we can  see the subprime crisis,nothing more that overproduction of credit, nobody needed it, only the market. 
He's sort of right in that we all create jobs by living our lives day to day and participating in trade. The rich also participate in trade. Someone who has 10X more than I have is doing 10X more with his money. He's not stuffing it in his mattress. He is either spending it on nicer things (fancier cars, better clothes, etc) or he's investing it various companies or perhaps he has his own company that he's trying to build. The goal for him and most of us, is to make more. With that you have to be more productive which means that you try to increase you efficiencies and yields. You don't hire people simply for the sake of hiring them - that's stupid. You do try to grow your business and that necessitates hiring people.

It's like the notion of 'trickle down' economics. It suggests that we all get our money from someone richer than us. That really is only a half-truth. Yes, you may work in McDonalds and are getting your paycheck from the franchise owner BUT that kid coming up to you who mows lawns decided to spend his money there that day and without a bunch of kids doing that then sales would be down and your job may not be required. Of course, that kid is mowing lawns for people do make more than him. It's more like we're all in a great economic sea and just happily trading with each other and that's a good thing.

The problem comes from playing games in the sea. We need to give tax break to the.. insert whomever here. It may be rich, it may be single mom's with children. Basically we start polluting the economic sea by playing these games. Suddenly some of us are somehow 'more valuable' than other or others of us should work harder and longer for the common good than others.

In doing so you end up with people trying to just 'get theirs' or 'stick it to the other guy'. Do you want to raise taxes on the rich? Great. They'll move their ship in the economic sea to friendlier (far away) waters and you won't be trading with them and that lost capital and production is going to be felt. Want to give give someone a break because of their situation (Maybe they deserve some kind of entitlement)? Now the rest of us have to curb our trading to make up the difference for the entitlement. Maybe it's $100 less in my pocket to make up for giving someone a break then that money isn't going to produce a good or service but, in very real terms, is going down the drain. Now you may argue: "Well that $100 you paid is still going to something - they are getting paid!" Right, but I was still producing $100 worth of goods and services. The person who gets that benefit didn't have to produce anything to get it. So the economic sea is $100 less full. Aside from that fact that it's a form of slavery. You're forcing one person to work so that another person gets free stuff (be it an entitlement or a tax break (subsidy)). Just because it's not a racially or ethnically based form of slavery doesn't mean it's not slavery.

Further, we have this hatred that has been rising and really being taught by our schools, media, and propagandized by our politicians that rich people are evil or corporations are evil and they should be punished. It's really no different than raising a group of people to hate the blacks, Jews, or whomever else you may choose. The notion is simple: You should hate them because they, as a group, are the cause of all of your problems even though you can't quite put your finger on how it all exactly works. You know, because you've been told your entire life, that they are bad people. You have anecdotal accounts of some things that some of the individuals have done and that's enough for you to warrant punishing them as a group. It's not your fault that you're not doing better - it's them. They're the reason for all of your woes.

Take the anti-rich or 'evil corporation' statements that have been made and substitute 'blacks' or 'Jews'  for 'rich' or 'corporation' and you'll see what I mean. It's the same hate, it's just accepted by a large part of society.

As far as taxes go: I think we should all be paying a flat tax. Don't give home owners tax breaks. They shouldn't be subsidized (encouraged) to buy a home with a break. Don't give people with children breaks. They made that decision. Why should the rest of us have to pay for it? Don't give rich people breaks which invariably happen because the screws are getting turned on them so you get an even larger screwed up system. Keep us all on the same level tax field and then, instead of complaining that someone didn't pay enough or you got screwed or whatever, then we're all finally focused on what's really bringing the US and the world down: out of control government spending. That is what we should be focused on. The problem is that everyone thinks that all other spending should go away except their pet spending project and that's when we get into the mess because we can't pay for all of it and, eventually there won't be a way to pay for any of it.
Should businesses keep employees around when they're unnecessary? If businesses are being inefficient, they will be unprofitable and have to close operations eventually. That would cause more loss of jobs. Profit is necessary to keep jobs that already exist.
I didn't see anything offensive in this TED talk.  But then, I'm a Fair Tax supporter and I agree with the guy.
High taxes, low taxes.  Nether matters.  The super rich have spoken - the US isn't a good investment. They aren't spending, they aren't hiring.  Right now the only thing the US excels at is providing a convenient place to park money.  We haven't seen job creation go up in years.  The progressive "a mortgage for every citizen" idea of the last 20 years only created jobs until the house of cards fell apart.  That's gone and the middle class is stuck with the bill.  Don't expect that to change for 20 years.  We're looking at a lost generation folks and neither party has the courage to do what is necessary to change that.
Stopping wasting the budget on "defence" spending would do more to sort out deficit than any other single measure.

Stopping subsidies and tax breaks for huge companies would also help.  I think a company with over $1 billion revenue can stand on its own two feet and should be made to do so
Real job creators of new, long term useful roles are much lower down the chain. 

Tax finance institution transactions and share dividends instead.  Neither of those profit creating approaches are about job creation or a sustainable economy, it's about milking the cow.
+Neil Paterson I'm homosexual and i use "faggot" as a generic insult. Don't play the card of the "Sir, you are quite politically incorrect so your arguments are wrong", it doesn't work. 
+Robert Belcher interesting that +Forbes is the magazine you use there. Forbes knows its demo. "It's okay 1%-ers, shh, the bad man has stopped talking now. Don't let him upset you. Just read another article about how awesome rich people are." 
Ok before I make any statements I want it known that I make very little money, enough to make it by. I don't see the good in taxing the rich anymore then they already are for example, Romney says he pays no less then 13%, that 13% from one year is more then I will ever pay in taxes. He was a job creator, he gives to charity and a lot ( which almost all rich people do) and invests into companies. If he was getting taxed just as much as we are do you think he's going to chance creating a business if that means if it fails then he's screwed? Do you think he would donate as much money as he does, no considering that almost all the money he was making was going straight to the government. If anything we need to lower taxes on business so people stop outsourcing, I don't blame them when American has about 30% tax then you go to China and its about 6% tax. I don't care who you are but rich people do create jobs, they have the capital to begin with, they have that "barrier" to protect them if it fails. If someone from the middle class is trying to open a business they have to start making money right away or they go under considering the taxes, labor, material costs etc.
"Don't play the card of the 'Sir, you are quite politically incorrect so your arguments are wrong'"

How about the "I quit listening to you after you led with a slur, and I don't really give a fuck about your arguments or anything you have to say anymore, asshole" card? 
You know what scares me the most about hiring people as a small business owner? The tax paperwork mess. I prefer to use Elance when I need help instead.
Those who don't like his speech don't understand economics. 
"Those who don't like his speech don't understand economics. "


Okay, I'm out. 
To answer a lot of people's questions, taxes aren't our problem-- we're in the back-end of a what liberterians call a "de-leveraging cycle". Or what Richard Koo calls a "balance sheet recession".

We could lower taxes to zero and it wouldn't help much because industry and individuals are totally saddled with debt from the post-1980 credit boom.

Until private debt is reduced-- either by people paying it off over time, or via liquidation-- our economy will continue to struggle. As Ron Paul would say, "you've got to liquidate the debt!"

The worst thing we could do is print money and keep interest rates low-- that just inflates the credit bubble further.
So i have read both sides of the story on this video. I can see where the video was only eh so so, and as such that is probably the reason it was dropped by TED as they claim. HOWEVER the video does touch on one current trend which is trickle UP economics. In that sense it is good to see this type of information starting to pop up in a few places. Trickle down has been preached to the people for over 30 years now, and has been shown it doesn't really work. Why would any company hire workers they do not need because there is not enough demand for their product. Trickle up economics is all about strengthening the lower/middle class in order to increase their buying power, and as a result the demand that comes with that buying power.
+Michael R Ponicki I agree with the printing part but the interest? You can't pay off debt if the interest isn't low. Example, American express interest rate for the card I have 23% I've been trying to pay that card off for 2 years, considering for every 100 I pay only takes about 20$ off the bill the remaining goes to fees and interest.
The problem isn't that the facts aren't obvious, its trying to educate the masses and spread the word that is such a struggle!
That's the most disingenuous speach I've ever heard. We have a very progressive tax code... in general, the more you make, the higher percentage you pay. The biggest impact of high taxes and the burden of healthcare costs which is skyrocketing is the difficulty to own and maintain small businesses.

I was trying to read this speaker's charts, but he went through them so quickly, there was no time to verify or even comprehend what was on there.

Very simplistic approach of using hyper-emotional hooks like "people used to believe the Earth was the center of the universe" and applying it to something that is completely unrelated. I could have used the same line then said it's the same as people today beliving that taxing the "rich" more will benefit society.
Where is your proof he is wrong? He just may have a view of things that do not fit your concept of correct or incorrect.
+Jesse Hubley If it was so progressive, Buffett would not pay less than his secretary in taxes. There is no ground to call him disingenuous, but if you disagree, try to counter-argue
Let Small Business flourish. They will do the job creating...
A lot of more worthless garbage (any Faux News program) is paid more attention to than this video. I think that while it may not be as thorough as some may like, he didn't have the time.  I noticed that a timer was marching down from 5 minutes in front of him. I don't know too many that can make a presentation on such a topic in only 5 minutes. The idea is the most important part of the talk. If allowed more time, I believe that he could further support his position. This idea needs more debate and public scrutiny so that the truth can be revealed. What is needed is not my truth or your truth, but the Facts.
Great post! Adam Smith, father of western capitalism, said the same things. Every American should read his work "Wealth of Nations." However, in the west, it is painfully obvious that wealth is worshiped as a god. 
Simply.. what I earn is mine. The federal goverment or for that matter state has no rite <moral or legal> to it. Taxing is theft. The less theft the better.
Unfortunately running a business requires more than a few dollars in your pocket and the desire to purchase. Talk to the 90% of startups that fail...but tried really hard to succeed. Fact is we need to bring back the power of antitrust legislation...we have a major consolidation of power in the fortune 500 and its not good for small business or in the long run consumers. The problem is that people use this same arguement against small businsses with the apparent thought that $250k is alot of money for a business to make. Think about how many jobs 250 makes... assuming wed all want to make 50k/year thats 5 jobs...that hardly qualifies as a business that would go unaffected by a tax hike
+Larry Brown if we didn't get taxed we would live in a world like mad max beyond thunderdome. Lol
this is a gross misinterpretation, the blame for middle class and the economy is not a result of the taxes on job creators, the middle class is beat down by government requirements and policies that flow through those businesses, not by the rich, not by the businesses themselves.  Nick is a rich liberal tool, and is probably on big gov payroll
+michael rogers the rate of course. Progressive tax meant you pay a higher rate when you make more. That's not the case. 
Yes +michael rogers! I completely agree with you. The middle and lower classes need to be taxed more. You guys in the lower and middle class already have no money, so taxing you at 40% or 60% doesn't make much of a difference to you because you're still dirt poor. Me on the other hand, having several hundred million dollars, getting taxed at 13% vs. 30% can make all the difference in the world. At 30% tax rate, I have to spend 3 months riding around a dinky 60' motor yacht in the Caribbean. At 13% tax rate, I can enjoy my 3 month vacation in the Mediterranean on my luxury 120' mega yacht. If only everyone could understand this as well as you!
+Rob Fauls you would be surprised I'm a restaurant manager, my boss the owner only makes about 50-75k a month 20-25k is payroll a month and another 20k in food costs and say 10k for getting new items or fixing etc. I can't tell you how many times she has had to sell her own stuff to pay the taxes because its so high.
+Emre Yucel I'm not saying we should be taxed more... I'm just saying the taxes they pay even at 13% are a lot of money and if they really worked for it and did there time then yes they deserve to be vacation if they would like, but just out of curiosity did you build that boat with your own trees and metal? If not then you spent a lot of money with a business that pays employees to do that, employees that I can't help cause I don't make a lot of money.
+Jesse Hubley The basic structure of the American tax code might be "progressive" but considering the tax code is so riddled with loopholes and credits the tax structure in reality is not progressive at all.
The government's job is to promote the Rule of Law.  When the government get's away from that core function, for any reason - the middle class will suffer.  The poor will stay poor, the rich will stay rich, and the middle class will collapse into the poor.

Our government doesn't promote the rule of law.
I like TED. This guy was dead accurate and concise for almost 6 minutes. It's also funny how many trolls this post has attracted due to the fact that the content successfully attacks and discredits the base platform that the GOP and Mitt Romney have been using since Obama was elected.
Yes a "Myth" and still a Myth, eh?  Think we should all go back to farming...  LOL
TED didn't publish it? So I guess all their blustering about free in formation exchange is bs. It would have to be. They are funded by a corporate body owned by so and so which owned by this person who owns the whole east coast. Pretty gutless though.
Guys isn't completely off but he makes a cause and effect claim and never really proves it.  (2 charts of the US from the last 30 years is not causal proof on such a complicated subject).

Plus, why is the conclusion raising taxes on the rich, when the simpler and more obvious answer is lower taxes on the middle class and stop treating capital gains different than  ordinary income.

You can't say its a virtuous cycle in one sentence and then say consumers drive employment and businesses hire only as a last resort in the next.  Large businesses may hire at a last resort, maybe, but small businesses are responsible for job growth and they have to hire first and take a chance their will be consumer demand later on.  And with startups, how can the consumer drive employment when they don't even know a product exists before the startup creates it?  
+Adil Hindistan I'm trying to say yes maybe buffets secretary pays a higher percentage but I'm guessing buffets pays more money with his lower percentage. Unless he no longer works for money and gets it all from capital gain then that's a different story.
+Bart Pair He wasn't trying to answer everything question related to the topic, just the one myth :  the rich are the job creators, therefore lower their taxes so they have more money to create jobs.
Taxation is theft. This gentleman is delusional. In other news, TED are still a bunch of elitist douche bags.
+Blair Warner   "That's why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is such a fantastic deal..."   goes beyond busting a myth.  And that is the problem with the talk, he takes the conclusions well beyond his few charts allow.

I'd have been fine with him saying, "Look the rich aren't the job creators and here is why...  This opens the door to a host of new discussions and possibilities, here are a few ...."  But that isn't what he did at all.
Yes +michael rogers! I'm a job creator. I am lucky that my multi-million dollar wealth came from my family so I don't have to work like you, but I create jobs by buying things. The yachts have upkeep, so i buy fuel, i have a captain, a cook, and a few hands to help around the deck. You complain about gas prices at the pump, but wait until you hear how much it costs to fill up a 100000 gallon tank!! I like the trickle down economy. So this guy in the video is wrong: we don't buy 3000 more cars than the average american, but my one car cost 3000 times more than your Ford Fiesta. You're lucky because you have no money, so you have social safety net protecting you. I have my wealth manager take care of my money and it's very risky, I could lose millions in a day if he handles it wrong (I'd fire him). So I take a lot of huge risks every day. If I was taxed at 30% like the poor people in this country, I wouldn't be able to take risks and my money would not grow as fast, maybe not grow at all.
+michael rogers That's stating the obvious. Buffett's rate is lower than his secretary because so called progressive tax system is not progressive anymore.
+Emre Yucel as sarcastic as I feel your being or just a dick you would get taxed more to be honest I lose almost half my check to taxes but I also live in new jersey so that explains a little.
I don't buy it. This is nothing but class warfare. The solution to the world economic situation will not be found in simply taxing the top 1%! This is a red herring. In Florida they tried a luxury tax on yachts. The instantaneous result was the closing of all yacht yards in the state! An entire industry went over seas in the blink of an eye. I am all for everyone paying their fair share, but taxing an industry will result in it moving to another country ASAP! Rich people are not dumb. If you increase the tax on the money that they make here they will take their businesses elsewhere faster than a speeding bullet. 
+Adil Hindistan I'm confused then, I'm trying to say that I don't mind that they pay a smaller % rate but wayyyyy more money.
His talk seems legit and he makes many good points.
Ronald Reagan's gift that keeps on giving...the lie of trickle down economics.  Give my money, and by magic you will get money.
+michael rogers I do mind. Why should they pay at a lower rate than me, if they are making more? (I live in NJ too btw, hi neighbor!) 
+michael rogers I hear your pain, trust me I've got a lot of debt too. We all do, that's the problem! But I didn't say this wouldn't be painful to get out of, such is the mess we're in.

If we don't raise interest rates we'll just keeping replacing the old debt with the new and it will prolong the agony indefinitely. Just ask Japan, they had a similar credit bubble in the 70s and early 80s, and their deleveraging either took 15 years or is still going on depending on who you ask.

All we can do is let the debt liquidate over time and not inflate yet another credit bubble. Which is right back to what I was saying-- we need to raise interest rates.
+Robert Erickson  Great Laffer curve example. Mario Monte recently did a similar thing in Italy: sent out patrols to try to enforce their absurd tax rates, and in only a week or two the harbor was empty.

Did it raise or lower tax revenue when all of the harbor businesses started going bust?
As a "job creator" I 100% agree, the amount of money I have has never had any effect on the jobs I offer how ever the amount of business I will have due to the amount of consumers I for see serving decides every position I offer
The racket is in the bracket.

Check the increments between bracket changes and the percentage of income increase from bracket to bracket. If anyone can explain the logic behind having four (4) tax brackets from $0 to $380K - and then no new bracket from $380K to infinity, that would be interesting.

But really, that's the easy part compared to making a logical basis for why tax rates more than triple between $10K and $380K, but then rise only 2% into infinity. One might imagine a new rate hike for at least every new million tacked on, but no. Of the 8,274 returns reporting more than $10 million (some of them reporting hundreds of millions more), none of them paid a higher rate than the guy that made $380k.

It's a math trick - and almost funny how it works. The very rich don't even have to fight their own battles, as the well-to-do will defend them in hopes of breaking the $380K barrier themselves someday - which they rarely do. And when they do, according to the IRS,  they most often fall right back into it.
+Koushik Dutta That statement says something about Apple, not all companies… A company's profit may not have anything to do with jobs (e.g., "patent trolls").

What about Maulden Mills? He did the "right" thing and... read what happened…

Without a profit, there are no jobs. Therefore, there isn't anything inherently wrong with profit. You simply can not operate if you lose money year after year (unless the public pays-post office, Amtrak, ...).

Look at Windham Weaponry… Bushmaster (old name) was sold, & the new owner consolidated production in an existing facility and proposed closing the old facility. The original owner bought the equipment, opened a new company, & retained production & jobs… This company too must make a profit though…

Generalization doesn't work because it, generally, only catches some under the bell curve while ignoring the outliers…

There has to be profit for jobs to be kept, but more profit does not mean more jobs…
why does everybody keep blaming the president for high unemployment rates? if you slacked off in school and can't find a job, IT'S YOUR FAULT!!!
To me it sounds that you need to have a middle class that makes educated decisions about how they spend their money. Sadly in America most of them are still waiting for Jesus. Without education every system is bound to fail.
Wow. In my gut I agree with him but I never thought to formulate it that way. Very interesting.
Some good points. That's why there should be a flat tax with no deductions except charitable gifts. The current tax code provides too many loopholes and is not fair at all.
It'd quite rare that the elephant in the room is the person speaking; the rich man, or the man who wants to be rich, starts the process of job creation. If no one had money we would all have to ask the poor to give us a job. I've had a few jobs -- never been hired by a poor man, or by a man who had no drive to be rich.
So I guess that along with not building my business, I also didn't hire the 7 people who work for me?
+Adil Hindistan I feel that if they put the effort into accumulating there wealth why shouldn't they be able to enjoy it and pass that on to there children?( leave a healthy cushion for them as adults not everything let them make there own success) I know the reason I want to make a lot of money is for my kids but if I'm getting taxed at almost 50% there is no wealth its just " hey I went to school for 8 years and have just as much to show for it as the guy that barly graduated high school".
I 100% agree with the talk. That being said, TED talks usually are presenting information that is new, presented in a new way and thought provoking. This talk sounds much more like a policy proposal and not a particularly new one at that.
TED does have similar talks that are longer on information

+Joseph Rizzo Income tax is generally progressive but +Shane Jackson  is right that loopholes etc make it dramatically less progressive. About 0.5% of people making over $200,000 end up paying $0 taxes
To me it doesn't matter much if the rich are taxed more or not. I am probably to some ppl considered poor, yet I have a pink collar job.....I'm teacher (and we all know public school teachers don't get paid sh$t). However, I FEEL very wealthy. Wealthy people realize that concept that's why they are able to create wealth. They teach their children that too. Children of the 1% aren't growing up hoping they work for a fortune 500 company. On the contrary, they are growing thinking they are going to start the next fortune 500 company. What it boils down too is how you view money and most importantly how you handle it. Many poor ppl have a lot of debt. That's not anyones fault but the person in debt. We should learn to be smart with our money instead of hoping that one day the elite will be gracious and give us some of there's. THEY WON' stop the wishful thinking, and create your own wealth in your life by eliminating stressors, paying down debt ( if u have it), loving yourself, helping others less fortunate, and by the way you can do that in non-monetary ways too. Example- smile, or say hi to someone homeless one day( they are ppl too). But most importantly be happy. Some of the wealthiest people don't have peace, and happiness in the their lives. ~ jus my opinion~
Everyone that is saying if you don't have an education you won't make money, what happened to amazing work ethics? My grandfather didn't graduate high school can't even spell cool, but somehow made himself a millionaire. Weird, who knew hard work paid off....
+michael rogers The education just helps your chances.  Having education doesn't automatically make you a millionaire, just like not having it doesn't prevent you from becoming one.
Think about this.. what this guy is saying is take money from the wealthy and give it to the government so they can create wasteful programs that then give that money to the poor. Um. No thanks.
+Michael R Ponicki ok I can see that I was actually reading about the China bubble the other day, but what about differentiating what the debt was from like mine was from my gf mom breast cancer treatment it was a new treatment over 5000$ that wasn't covered from insurance from a hospital. They need to make credit for different situations so where not getting screwed at every which way we turn.
I think a system which encourages people to not seek jobs but instead to become entrepreneurs would create the most vibrant economy, in my uneducated opinion. I think the struggle is between creating/maintaining an economy in which people are encouraged to pursue wealth but the very poor are not left behind. Perhaps bottom-up is more important than top-down?
education is to show how capable we are but it doesn't reflect in growth of wealth...!

strange but truth...!
A very simple discussion about a very simple economic principle.  This is exactly why trickle down/voodoo economics do not work.  He should have mentioned the velocity of money which is the number of times a dollar is spent over a given time period, typically a year.  A dollar in wages is almost always spent, then re-spent and a typical velocity in the US is around 6 to 10 times (in the last few decades) because wages are earned by the lower and middle class who typically spend all of their wages and save very little (because they cannot afford to save).  However, a dollar of dividends or tax breaks for the rich is typically not spent and there is no multiple spending effect for that dollar.  It simply goes into savings.  The M1 velocity of money in the US has fall from 10 down to 6 in the past few years even though the rich have gotten richer.  So, it is evident that not taxing the rich does not create jobs.  That is why trickle down economics does not work and, hence, does not create jobs.
+Steve Mayne that's why I said that, the people that are in low to middle class are there for there own fault because they don't have the drive so why should they be rewarded?
When a business manager thinks there is sufficient demand and wants to employ someone, to share the work and grow his business, he or she is creating a job. It is so completely at that business manager's discretion that it is laughable to suggest otherwise.

He makes a valid point about feedback loops, but squanders it with irrelevant appeals to Copernican disputes and politics of hate - or at least very strong dislike. Otherwise why use a straw-man term like "the rich" when the people that are being affected by policies enacted by proponents of this line of thought are small businesses and retirees, among others who aren't the hated "rich" class.  

People with motivation and resources create the ecosystems, jobs, demand -- all of it.  People with resources and no sense of purpose or motivation squander those resources. When government officials order large scale destruction of capital, bleed away billions into poorly accounted slush funds for special interest groups to play with, and pay people to do nothing, it doesn't build up the middle class, it destroys wealth by destroying the motivation and resources people need to move up into and out of the middle class. 
+michael rogers Sure, I understand where you are coming from! We all want the same thing and put a lot of effort to accumulate wealth for our children. If you had argued we should 'all' pay at a lesser rate, I would understand that. Instead, you are letting some of the people off the hook, who can afford to pay more in the first place.

"Fairness" is the key, my friend. If you are paying 50%, and Romney or Buffet with millions and billions is paying only 15%, something is wrong there. Progressive taxing without such loop-holes as capital gain would mean he pays 50% and you pay 15%. We got it all upside down in the last 30 yrs and look where we are! 

Nutley, btw...
+Al Scott  thanks for totally mischaracterizing me. I'll be a gentleman and resist the temptation to return the favor.
The middle class seeks employment, how does seeking employment create jobs?
Now I know why Rom Manager is not getting updated like it has in the past, Dutta's smoking them doobies.
What u consider fair I consider unfair, is that fair ?
Lmao +Adil Hindistan no way I live in lyndhurst! I also understand what your saying but I feel that if he made his wealth and now he wants to invest and spend, there's less competition and more of a chance for new business then more employment, more chances to move up then the cycle begins. If he gets taxed a lot he is gunna have to work harder and be more competitive.
Or work less so he earns less and slips to a lower tax bracket.....
Consumers do not take the risk, Job Creaters do. Consumers do not hire workers, Job Creaters do. Consumers do not create what they buy, Job Creaters do. Consumers do not invest, Investors do. They do not do the research, Job Creaters do. This man want you to believe that Society creates jobs and Individuals have no understanding, no knowledge, no skill, no want apart from this pagan "god" called society. And as high-priest of "Society", he looks for the denigration for the individual. Strong individual don't need him, that is why he wants to destroy anyone successful.
This idea is nothing new.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Truly an idea worth sharing in my opinion.
Here's the fallacy, the reason a job was created is a because an individual saw a need and actually made a decision of his own to fill that need. At the moment of that decision, the job is created, and any other jobs due to high demand are a consequence of that single decision. Just because there is a need doesn't mean the individual has to  to fill it. There are many things people want that but no one is filling that void. Demand doesn't create businesses, entrepreneurs do. This guy is a socialist. 
YES! The rich don't create jobs, customers do. In an interview he mentions that he makes about 1000x the average wage but only has 3 cars and the same number of clothes as an average American man not 1000 cars or 1000x as many clothes.
+michael rogers You made a very good point! But if you think about that, it implies that taxing puts them into the right track: competitive, hard working. Nothing's wrong with that.
So where dose this consumer gets the discressionary $$ in his pocket in the first place?    No, somebody has to stick his neck out and create the goodies that the consumer may want.
+Adil Hindistan that creates a hostile free market, small business would be crushed. The dream of most small business is to go corporate, more money. If there is a lot of seasoned business men still going at it then there can't be growth.
Pretty sure I've seen them post this video here on g+. AND on their website. It was published... 
No job is "created" unless it will generate more profit for the capitalist than it costs to maintain. The problem most people have with "job creator" is the allusion to Godhood (The Creator) and the strong implication of noblesse oblige, when of course no such thing exists in America anymore. If it did, the right would not be trying to destroy Social Security. No one is trying to destroy successful individuals; that is the paranoid fantasy the super-rich and their dupes indulge in, in order to justify their appalling, treasonous greed.
+michael rogers the issue is, they are taking your income, which you would pay taxes on, but not paying taxes on it themselves. In fact, they pay less than we would if we had received the income due us. They then complain the people they took income away from are not paying their share yet refuse to pay for the share they took.

Also, time and time again you get fixated on dollar amounts rather than percentages. That's an extremely distorted view of the issue. And once you start comparing disposable income to taxes paid, it becomes nauseating.

The simple fact is, the rich has been waging class warfare for the least three decades...and winning. Worse, people like you seem to be supporting the destruction of the middle class (who are the real job creators) and oppression of the lower class just so the rich can usurp our income and pay less taxes.
This is a short version on "The Price of Inequality" by Joseph Stiglitz. It should not be a surprise to anybody that we have a model of regressive taxation in the US. What he does not cover is how you SPEND the taxes. Now your taxes go into war, corporate giveaways and bank bailouts, just like always. They need to go into universal healthcare, public education, infrastructure and elimination of poverty. 
I want what this guy is smoking lol. And I thought I made dumb statements.

Excuse but it is simple take a average  millionaire & a middle class person..hand them both a million dollars.. which one do you think will return  with a profit and hire more people with in year.

Why are people like this bad mouthing the rich for earning a living the best they know how & profiting the most as they can .

The FAIR TAX System would solve all this, income tax punishes you for earning while the Fair Tax punishes you for spending.
+Kenneth Smith I agree with you on the "wasteful" part but personally see a lot of benefits of eliminating poverty ("giving money to the poor"). Social security and medicare programs almost completely eliminated poverty among the seniors. Expanding these programs to the rest of the society will have a great multiplying effect on the economy. This will improve quality of life for everyone including the wealthy 1%.
This is the "chicken or the egg" argument.
+michael rogers I am sorry, Michael but I fail to see the logic in that justification. History tells us that your worries did not come true in the past when our tax system was not cutting a slack to ultra-rich. 

A stronger middle class will always mean small business will thrive. If people have money, they can buy your services and afford to pay more. Once middle class is eroded, which is happening due to last 30 year's policies, you will have to reduce your prices b/c people do not have the purchase power anymore, and you will be making even less.

That's a more realistic scenario for you than 'seasoned businessman' coming down to crush your business if they are forced to pay their share like everyone else. Hope you see that... 

And if not, well, rain finally stopped and sun is up, so have a nice day neighbor.
+Craig Sjoquist So what you're saying is, middle class people are absolutely incapable of creating a business and turning a profit?  If you're handing them both a million dollars they become equals and have an equal opportunity to create a business.  The only reason Millionaires create more businesses is because they have more resources to start the company.  

You're right, you do make dumb statements.  
Times are changing really fast. One has to update himself daily, otherwise he will be left out of pace. 
+Jim Black I disagree! The companies that survive are the companies that give the consumer what they want at a price the are willing to pay. This has been and will always be a consumer driven economy and if consumers ever realize how much power they have and how to use it that is when this country will again be the great country it once was.
+Greg Copeland The price of equality is a very real concern with a lot of people and the loopholes in the tax  structure don't help a lot either.  Wealthier people don't want to share the pie with either the middle or lower class .. TED should be ashamed of their action on this volatile subject 
+Adil Hindistan we have different views I just can't word mine as well(it does come out a little choppy) lol I see what you saying and I respect your view. You have wonderful day as well sir. :)
+Craig Sjoquist statistically its more likely the middle class will turn a profit on that million dollars. The middle class is the life blood of the economy. They do the majority of business development and risk, which is then either adopted by big business or flat out purchased.

Something most people don't realize, its the middle class who disproportionately are the real job creators in this country. Furthermore, when the rich claim they are the real job creators, what they are not telling you is that its at the loss of US jobs to outsource them in a foreign land. So yes, they created jobs by destroying them here. As such its actually more accurate to call them job destroyers.
+Greg Copeland that goes along with the tax rate at which they get taxed at here compared to another country. I hate to say it it's financially smart but nationally stupid.
Unfortunately, educated people make bad decisions left and right. Simple things like eating healthy, exercising, and spending less than you make are common sense ideas. Yet it is not just the uneducated who are buying 60" plasmas on credit.
Warren Buffett once said he does not know of anyone that had ever said they will not make an investment or hire because taxes are too high. The bottom line is, in a capitalist system, if demand exists businesses will spring up to fill that demand.
It should not surprise anyone when unbridled capitalism leads to its down fall. A slave governed by the laws against animal cruelty would have it better than the laborer in the throws of unbridled capitalism will have it. This is becoming evident with the on set of global labor competition with out any global regulation. Of course you would need to think a little bit to come to this conclusion. I do not see any way to prevented this from happening. You can start out with good intentions by regulating the capitalist, but as they gain money and power they will begin to make their own rules and regulations by controlling the minds of the people through the ownership of the news media. Even the father of capitalism, Adam Smith, warned of this. (­­wiki/Adam_­Smith ).
At one time the laborer was capable of organizing unions for the purpose of protecting the laborer and creating a middle class. This capability is quickly vanishing, largely do to the propaganda of the wealth owned press and unregulated global labor competition. Given enough rope, it appears to me that the capitalist will eventually hang himself. You can already see it happening with the wars, threat of wars, terrorism and millions dieing of hunger. This is not by any means all caused by capitalism, but indirectly by our belief in inequality. Capitalism seem to add greatly to the problem. It surely is not doing anything to help. You can see from Syria that no matter how much power leaders have, they can be brought down when people are willing to die rather than be oppressed. Through out history the rich get richer and the poor get poorer until the rich are over thrown, and at the same time causes a set back to mankind. It seems to me that as long as man believes in inequality it will always come to this. In that we all see our selves as better than some one else, I do not see that this will ever change. Personally I might be able to rationalize having 4 times as much as another if I am twice as smart as them an work twice as hard. I will never think that my having hundreds of times more than them is right. In that we can not do anything to change this and we all die, it probably does not really matter, so do like me and continue trying to accumulate wealth and enjoy it, while at the same time realizing that it is not right, and when the shit hits the fan do what you can to survive an try to end up on the winning side.:)
+michael rogers agreed. Its short term personal profits over that of our nation's long term economic health and viability.

That's why support of the middle class, even to the detriment of the upper class is very important.

There is far more elbow room at the middle class table, which in turn encourages upward mobility - which is also at near record lows right now. In turn, support for the middle class fuels upward mobility to the upper class.

Any economy which favors the upper class is a self serving (for primarily the upper class), destructive economy. Which interestingly enough, accurately describes our current economic situation.

+Cleverson Adimora This is true but it is usually the small businesses that start hiring first before the larger  companies hire new employees that are laid off at the first sign of problems and the small businesses hold on to employees longer and tough it out before laying off employees 
This is a flawed argument. It is not really about whether or not the wealthy create jobs but about their motivation. Duh of course businesses make decisions about creating or cutting jobs based on a profit motive. And yes, profit comes from sales often times to the middle class in some industries. That said it is still businesses that create jobs. Without businesses there wouldn't be jobs. Without profit there wouldn't be jobs. Stop demonizing business and profits. Business and profits are the only way the government can have money to even tax. I do not think it is governments role to be picking winners and losers. It should not favor any class, business, or group. We would all be better off with lower taxes and less government spending. That would only encourage more investment into our economy. Most government spending creates a dependent relationship on the government. I'm not just referring to the entitlements going to the less fortunate but also programs that prop up business and the like. Speaking of entitlements, they do not just create a reliance on the government by the poor but also by those not so unfortunate. Government programs have taught our culture that we no longer need to help our neighbor because the government will take care of them. The sad part is these programs can enslave those who need them by creating a reliance without accountability. People have no reservation about milking a government program whereas most people would think twice about milking the helping hand of a neighbor or friend. Minimize government and minimize taxes for all! 
40 years ago Milton Friedman made the same point, which I will paraphrase: Economic growth creates jobs, not the other way around. See this WSJ article from last fall:
These things are always contrived to give a carte blanche to one side. He makes a valid and needed point about where jobs come from, then he blows it by referring to govt taxing & spending as "investment". Most of our govt spending is on entitlements, which is a redistribution "money for nothing", not an investment for a return. Most of Obama's stimulus was the same, money sent to local governments to keep public employees on the payroll, not an "investment". This guy is talking one good point to justify a load of trash.
the single shrewdest thing we can do is to remove tax burdens from the middle class. 
One good in the front didn't like this speech. Arms crossed with a grimace.
Please don't confuse investment in the secondary equities market with investment in equities offered by a company. The first is unlikely to be closely related to job creation. The second may be.

I like the passion in the comments but I am disturbed by the general level of knowledge of economics. To have a meaningful conversation there has to be minimum level of understanding. Remembering that you should never argue with a fool because those listening may not be able to tell the difference, I'll stop now.

+Larry Olson I believe the "investment" is the hope that by providing people with money in the form of entitlements and keeping public employees on the payroll that they will contribute this money back to the economy. In contrast, without said money or jobs the hypothesis is they would likely not be able or willing to inject as much money into the economy.
Stop worrying about "them", and go create your own job. You create the market. Job Yourself.
While there is no real connection between low taxes for the rich and job creation, there also isn't any such connection between taxing the rich heavily and honest government spending.

The idea that high taxes would "pay for investments for the middle-class " is also a fable. When has it ever occurred in history where a society who heavilly taxed their rich pay for any investment? It has never occurred. Additional funds always go to higher government salaries, war spending or worse yet government driven money laundering.

A government that collects income tax in the first place is bound to thievery, for they cannot be honest. They use such funds for special interests and to favor their friends
The centre of the universe also depends, very much, on the viewer's perspective within a valid framework. Much like European cartographers began drawing Europe-centered maps of the world as early 1500 or NASA's three-dimensional map of the universe in the Hubble volume, with the Milky Way, and more precisely Earth, at it's very core. Likewise, society should be viewed as a collection of individuals, each at the centre of their own universe, freely coexisting with one another, for the greater good of the individual, and hence, society itself. Compartmentalising people into categories, under various abstract titles such as the rich or the middle class, is meaningless. In its most basic form, an individual opens a bakery because he recognises a demand for bread. Only after demand for his product exceeds supply will he be encouraged to employ someone. Employment is not an act of charity but an economic decision which would enable the manufacturer to satisfy demand for his product, with the express intention of increasing profitability.
there is nothing controversial on this talk! some facts that worth spreading!
Its funny that this is something people actually believe! And its one of those things that people only believe because its pounded into their heads that its somehow true!

If youre operating your business so close to the 3.5% margin that would be raised in taxes, youre completely dependent upon the government to keep yoir business profitable at the expense of our about welfare queens. Youve literally put the life of your business in the hands of others.

Thats way worse than a poor family getting food stamps just to have food for their families once a day!
Good speech. Hopefully some politicians watch it.
Thank you for a great video that I was unaware of...
Exactly what +Simone Robutti said. The guy provided no evidence for what he was speaking about. It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree, TED is not the place for soap boxing. They have a similar posts by people who take very data-specific routes to proving their point.

Posted. This anger is manufactured and misdirected. Nick Hanauer should be ashamed of himself.
Like someone once said, you tell a lie enough times and soon enough everyone believes it to be the truth.....paraphrase
Sha Man
Joshua Miller you should be ashamed of yourself for taking facts and spinning the truth against Nick Hanahuer, unless you are as close of a success as he was you have no right criticizing his point of view, and if you are a middle class person than you just shot yourself in the foot you stupid fool. you should also watch the banned segment of this because when its the truth its political! whatever .
This needs to be shared. The GOP has gotten away with too much propaganda protecting its 1% in its hidden class warfare. The 99% needs to stand up for itself. 
Well they get to have a life and I don't, I'm forced to do so much unpaid work to hold onto the job that I'll probably be dead from a stroke before I turn 45. 120 hours a week for 40 hours pay, that's all the 1% ask lol.
The job creation is flaw by ur congress, nd john banter the speaker of the house, u should attack his poor and childish demeanor, surely it isj't just me. I hope he is defeated very soon, the biggot. Child
His refusal 2 work with the president, he and his gang of fools.
wow the is the first truth! about the economy I've heard in a long time
Wish this video could run on all major networks on continuous loop.
    One honest man in a thousand.  We'll be reading about his tragic accident in the headlines soon!

    Like I've said before, if the low taxes on the rich created jobs, then where are the jobs?  And how will raising taxes on the richest people in America, not create jobs?
    Jobs are only created, when there's a demand for a product, or service, that the current job force can't cover.
For you capitalism complainers talking of how evil it is, who is your employer?
Thank you so much for your honesty and for informing the mssses of this fact.
if the systems in which money went into the system and were put back into the areas needed were 500-1000% more efficient, what this guy says would actually be true, but taking money away from people, rich OR poor or anywhere in between, does nothing but take money out of the private sector and launder it through an inefficient machine (government) so inefficient that only 30 cents on the dollar (on a good day) make it to the "projects" or "services" they are meant to fund... that is a 200% efficiency deficiency compared to the very least efficient charities and non-profit organizations... tell the government to FUCK OFF and we'll all be a lot better off and we can fund quite easily anything we need funded at local levels... the problem is a bunch (0.0000001%) of regular human beings are trying to dictate what the 99.9999999% rest of the country is allowed to do or not to do with THEIR OWN MONEY that they rightfully earned and should be allowed to spend HOWEVER THEY PLEASE... the premise that we need a bunch of nosy good for nothing fuck-ass politicians to tell us what to do with our money, or what we should be allowed to spend or not spend it on is flawed and so upside backwards inside out, anyone purporting such nonsense should really get in their car and drive into and overpass wall with no seat belt on at a very high rate of speed...
As a tax consultant, I can vouch to the fact that the wealthy job creators in this country are currently waiting on the sidelines with their cash to see what their tax rates will be in 2013, before engaging in any expansion before year-end.  I've seen it with my own eyes over and over again since 2008.. increasing taxes on the rich decreases opportunity for the lower and middle class.
Simple point made: lowering taxes on the rich will not create jobs as the right has so often emphasized... Firms have a main charter and that's to maximize profits for their investors. Thanks for posting Koush!!!
+Robert Gault  So you're saying there are no jobs because it's illegal to treat American employees as slave labour?
+Adil Hindistan Buffet pays a lower rate than his secretary because they are different taxes. You're comparing capital gains taxes(15%) to the progressive income tax.
Can't believe you have people on here that argue against equal tax rates. All tax rates should be the same, across the board as it is equitable. Then use the extra taxes gathered to offer tax incentives for the more Americans employed. No tax incentives if you outsource to China etc.
Higher tax money from the rich, should be used to reduce taxation on the middle and poor class. This way, the rich can sell more (get richer), and the middle/poor can buy more (better life conditions). See the cycle?
Since when is the government an investment vehicle? Increasing taxes on anyone to fund government investments seems like a bad idea to me. It is not shrewd it is idiotic.
Yeah, who needs road, rail lines, etc, And individuals should pay for their own, and only their own, education and health needs. 
This guys proves correlation, but never manages to prove causation. All in all, this was a very poor Ted talk; the speaker had data, and there was correlation, but he didn't ever prove that the richer getting richer was ever a bad thing, or that it even led to job losses, or that even taxing the rich would lead to job creation in the private sector. Ted was right to hold back this talk.
+Parker Boyce I think his point was that to prove the inverse;  that there is no rationale in not taxing the rich.
income (both corp. and personal) and investment taxes are a complete fail, consumption tax (with a baseline pre-bate like the fairtax includes) is the only fair way to tax people, that way if they don't want to participate in funding the beast, they can spend only on necessities and stay under the "baseline"... this also makes it possible to tax a large part of illegal activity... and also will eliminate embedded taxes and bring the retail cost of goods down to the tune of 18-25%... with a zero percent corp tax rate you'd spur a TON of manufacturing and headquarter relocation... 
If this guy is rich he should invest some of his money into startups and other job creating businesses and get even more rich and stop complaining about a system that worked fine for him.
I like his honesty. Rare to see that amongst the greedy.
+Robert Gault Then get those specific regulations removed, protest against them not regulations in general. The majority or regulations are good, useful, and needed so when you start spouting that "Regulations" loose jobs as a catch-all it makes you sound like a nut job.
+Joseph Rizzo  So you found two one where they accidentally sent a fine notification out that shouldn't have gone out under how the regulation is currently worded and one where a local city is fining food trucks for parking too near restaurants (where good or bad depends on which side you are on) but other than that gives them more freedom? Those aren't particularly bad examples of regulations and in 30 seconds of googleing I found dozens of regulations that make sure food that is sold to the public is safe, a set that prevents banks from risking people's savings, another set that prevents over-fishing, a set that defines what can be labeled organic food, and an interesting article deceptively titled "Over-regulation has no place in market" which says there does need to be regulation on Australian computerized trading.

So no I haven't "surveyed" all regulations but a representative sample gives me >100 completely good, 1 questionable, and 1 with a clerical error.
Add a comment...