So we should tax the rich? I don't get the connection.

Of course we do. The country is crumbling and many of them use the money they wrung out of paying people less to invest overseas, or to inflate bubbles. Watch the video -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Wc9bWc-WRs.

I was hoping to put this one up, but Victor beat me to it. For most of the people who read this blog, Hanauer might as well be speaking Swahili because he pops their precious preconceived notions. Or as George Carlin puts it...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jQT7_rVxAE

Amen. This blog post is literally the thought process of the liberal wrapped up in one nice tightly bound package. Victor Drover has no clue how business actually works or how products are developed. Innovators and risk takers create companies. If they create a product that is appealing to the consumer then the consumer buys it. When the company has cash it reinvests it in more product development and hiring people to design, manage and produce the product. I will also point out right now that the time value of cash is at an all time low. The stock market is volatile as all get out. So for a company owner their best bet for their cash these days is to reinvest it in their operation.

When will we reach the point where the liberals realize they are completely clueless when it comes to business and job creation and leave it to the adults in the room?

Afraid you'll actually have to debate the issue on its own merits

Thanks, the inability to actually take on what Hanauer says is indicative of your clinging to the status quo, while the status quo does you no favors.

Aflred, always the numbskull, attacks Victor for posting Hanauer's TED talk rather than knowing what to say about the TED talk. Hanauer is certainly smarter than you by a long shot.

I can see why you hide behind a screen name.

Afraid you'll actually have to debate the issue on its own merits

While you're at it let's factor in that people are being paid less and less, so they have to turn to buying cheaper goods. It's the way people get played with in this country by the people who are investing in Scott Walker.

Keith if I suspected you had even the remotest understanding of the way businesses operate (successfully) in today's economy, I might give your comment a passing thought.

I'm a self-employed, serial entrepreneur and the author/presenter in the video is a venture capitalist. Afraid you'll actually have to debate the issue on its own merits rather then try to discredit the messenger.

This is crazy talk by an unaccomplished ego maniac. How many jobs have you created Drover? How many folks are on your payroll?

"I'm a self-employed, serial entrepreneur"... Oh, then I agree with the stupid generalizations.

@Victor
If you are "self-employed, serial entrepreneur" who believes the rich must be taxed higher so others can spend the money has:

A) Failed as a "self-employed, serial entrepreneur" and therefore must have another man's money to spend

or

B) Is rich himself, but is so selfish and unable to donate the money freely that he requires the government to forcibly take his money and redistribute it.

I'm a self-employed, - Victor

serial entrepreneur and the author/presenter - Dude in the cute video

at least that is how I read it. Victor provides information about his past and current career with links on his profile page.

@Steve
My points and criticism remain the same.

Afraid you'll actually have to debate the issue on its own merits.

OK Jay, we're impressed.

Hanauer is just trying to make a point about how out of whack things are in this country. I'm sure he could go into the weeds with you on this, but just take it for what he says, or maybe you are trying to avoid what he says.

@Keith... I agree with Hanauer, when he says that we should tax the rich to pay for for 'infrastructure' that will to help re-build the middle class. What are those items? What is the build-out timeline? What will it cost? How will we measure progress? What is the definition of success? How will we correct for failure? Who do we hold accountable any failures? Why can't we re-deploy some of the current government revenue, that is not now achieving the 'definition' of resounding success?

Great questions Jay. We'd certainly need some details before making policy.

Cause a "venture capitalist" told us so.

The binary world of Greg.

Do they own three hundred houses or drive three hundred cars? Can they wear more than one pair of pants at a time? Yes, their stuff is nice, but that bit about rich people being the most effective consumers is bull.

@J. B. Schmidt
Aren't the rich the biggest consumers??
Im sure that they buy more Hamburger Helper then the poor.

@Randy
So now consumption is not enough? It must be the proper type of consumption? Please tell me what consumption qualifies as proper consumption in your eyes.

@J.B. -- I'm in favor of the kind of consumption that grows the economy rather than shrinks it by skimming money and investing overseas. Either you can't understand that or you're being obtuse.

Yes, some businesses operate like that, but for a variety of reasons. I, as a business owner, would hire the third person and maybe even a forth, to sell this product that just jumped 50% in demand. This may result in my profit being decreased and my risk increasing until hopefully some future date when my new equipment and car for the salesman are paid off.
Oh damn, one of my employees just stopped showing up. No notice, nothing. I think my ulcer is acting up since I got that call from the bank. I can't pay for my supplies until 75 day after I ship this order. I guess I will have to go into the shop and start making units. I will not see my wife or kids for a while, and by doing both jobs I'll be making just under minimum wage. But I will get 3 or 4 hours of great sleep tonight knowing that I created some jobs.

Mike great point. Efficiency plays a huge role but consider the impact it can have on quality or sell price versus cost. In many cases consumer cost decreases with demand and that by trying too hard to become efficient, you end up increasing your production costs to maintain quality because that is harder to do when you ask fewer people to produce more product - which in turn leads to lower profit margins. You may end up with better gross sales but the bottom line is for a business owner is not gross sales but net profit.

I agree with you Bob. Do you think that the so-called "infrastructure" projects qualify? Roads, bridges, etc...

Only from the standpoint of providing temporary, make-work jobs. The problem is you can't tax the rich enough to pay for projects of that size. So you're either increasing the debt load simultaneously or increasing the tax burden on the same middle class you're trying to help with the make work jobs. And if those who benefit from the make work jobs continue to buy products produced outside the country (which is a certainty for whole groups of products these days), you've diluted the overall effect on our economy to the point where it might be a wash.

It's not a simple problem with a simple solution to be found in a revelation that the consumer is the job creator. I as I said above, if they're the job creators, they're also, by nature of their consuming habits, the job exporters as well.

How about an interurban train to Madison. So, the question is:What would it take for this interurban line to qualify for 'investment' status, and then, we get to send the bill to the rich. The answer has nothing to do with the 'make work' jobs it creates for construction or operations. The answer is not 'build it and they will come'. Simply, after the build-out capital expenditure phase, will the operating revenue cover the costs of ongoing operations.

Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards -- Kierkegaard

@Jay Sykes...Expanding on my old friend Kierkegaard, it is the fool that doesn't use the understanding of the past to move forward into the future. There is no better illustration than the experiences of the "Gilded Age" and the "Robber Barons". The plutocratic oligarchy has gained control to the extent that they control even the discussions of moving forward. Plutocrats have no other interest than self interest and the maintenance of their wealth, power and positions. What they fail to understand, just as in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, is that the unbalance of the distribution of wealth will eventually lead to social upheaval. The social movements of the 20th century were born out of this disparity. Unless, we as a society, are prepared to eliminate the extreme disparity, we'll see the rise of continual social unrest. Thus, exposing all of us to the danger of an uncertain future.

Some of us with modest incomes are intelligent enough to avoid the credit pitfall. Why pay twice as much for something? Hence, I drive ten year old used cars, purchase my clothing at KMart, postpone home repairs until it's absolutely necessary, do work myself rather than hire someone . . .

Multiply me and you will see a definite downward pressure on consumer demand. Income has a lot of influence. Heck, I'd like an iPad, but I don't need one, and I feel so uncertain about the future that I'm going to leave that money in the bank just in case.

@wiplayer..."Atlas Shrugged" and Ayn Rand has been continuously discredited.......................Better to start with Adam Smith and the "Wealth of Nations".

Lyle - Atlas Shruged is sort of like 1984. It presents an idea but to the extreme. However, like a lot of science fiction, there are pieces of the story that end up existing in society. I hve always found how incredibly similar the entitlement of the people in Atlas Shrugged has mirrored society for the last several years.

Of course the story is probably told better in other places but this is one I know well and have been intrugued about how something written so long ago has so many examples in today's world.

@wiplayer...The problem with Atlas Shrugged was that Ayn Rand believed that collectivism was going to take over. If you read anything about her history you'll find a disgruntled Russian bourgeoisie who was completely morally corrupt. She promoted philosophical Objectivism and her concept of rational egoism. Unfortunately one of her disciples was Alan Greenspan and you can see what her philosophy resulted in; the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression.

Lyle - I surrender. It's too hard to have a general conversation with you. Thanks for letting me try though. :)

@wiplayer...I didn't mean to shut you down. I would welcome discussions with you at any time.

My perception, while definely not 100% accurate, is that rich people don't create as many jobs as the companies or ideas they might own. As far as taxes - i'd like to see a flat tax percentage. that's it. (problem is those with the means will always be able to shelter more of what carries value than someone who is not so furtunate - but that is a whole other discussion).

I worked for a large corporation and did so at a time I was taking a course on corporate responsibility. The company I worked for decided to have all manufacturing done overseas. I hated the idea because it put hundreds out of work. But I also understood that the cost of producing product in the US was too much if the company were to remain in business at all. While I understood the choice, I completely disagree with it to this day.

Every day I go to work, I bring value to my employer. Some of the people I work with just collect paychecks and some are in between. It is this dicotamy that I believe can make or break company decisions and ultimately cost jobs. It's easier to relocate than put up with people who don't care about adding value to who they might work for. But it sure would be nice if more people cared about the companies they work for and made a decision to become part of the company answer than a bitter, entittlement feeling emplyee.

@wiplayer...First, let me say that the recall of the governor at this time was doomed to failure. Walker's win was as much about the rejection of the recall process as anything else. The difference in Walker's numbers and Barrett's were consistent with the numbers of people who were upset with the recall process. I think the jury is still out concerning Walker's policies and their impacts will be clear by the time that he stands for reelection in 2014.

Concerning unions, it is a long and complicated story. I agree that without unions and their work early on, the worker would be much worse off. The downward slide for union membership began during the Truman Administration when the Taft-Hartley Act was passed severely limiting union actions. This essentially forced unions into getting directly political by attempting to influence legislation for their own benefit. The big hits that came against the unions occurred during the 1970s and 1980s when they were seen as a major contributor to "stagnation" and the wage/price spiral. Since then, labor unions have proven to be unpopular and their organizing has been severely curtailed. Public unions have been a different breed altogether from their private union counterparts. Public unions have been severely limited by statute from work actions open to the private unions. It is illegal for them to have work slow downs or strikes. The public unions have been forced to work on collective bargaining agreements. (continued)

@wiplayer (continued)...The collective bargaining agreements became the organization's policy and procedures manuals; regulating everything from work rules to production levels. Pay and benefits were the minor portion of collective bargaining. It was not uncommon for the public unions to go years without a signed contract, but could not take job actions to force an agreement. The government entity had always retained the upper hand in setting wages.

Since the restriction of Wisconsin public unions to only negotiating capped wages, then much of their purpose for being has been negated and they have lost membership. Every agency that depended on the CBA to governing the work place has been forced to go back and write P & P Manuals, which has been laborious and time consuming. They have been written without employee input and have become contentious, leaving the employees highly dissatisfied. Due to this some of the best and brightest of public employees have chosen to leave, either through retirement or moving into the public sector. In any case, this damages the organization through the loss of experienced employees. I call this throwing the baby out with the bath water. All this will have to be addressed with or without the unions. If it isn't addressed then over the next few years service and service levels are sure to decline.

I'll tell you what entitlements i demand, Chris. I demand the Social Security and Medicare benefits I paid my entire working life for. I also resent having to pay extra for hospital treatment when the people bumped off BadgerCare hit the ERs and can't pay.

And what would you call Diane Hendricks' wish to pay less in income tax at the expense of people like me taking up the slack if not an entitlement?

And your dad is a real card. The idiot driver who slid into us last spring while we were at a stop sign was a guy.

Randy,

You missed the slight attempt at humor. Just tweaking the liberals.

I too would like SS and Medicare to be there when I retire. Unfortunately, we can all see the writing on the wall that in it's current form, that's not going to happen.

Not sure how you can be mad at people for following the tax code.

I would love to see a study as to how many that were "bumped" off of BadgerCare even had a primary care doctor. I have a staff of about 50, mostly entry level jobs. A large percentage are on BadgerCare. They all still run to the emergency room for the sniffles. What do they care what service they use?

Chris -- ERs aren't free. Either they are reimbursed by private insurance, BadgerCare, or out of pocket by people who use them. The remainder are passed on to the hospital costs for everyone else.

You talk about running to the ER for sniffles. It's so expensive for an uninsured person like myself that we have toughed out actual injuries rather than risk thousand dollar bills just for getting checked over.

Randy,

My point was, they may have been bumped off of BadgerCare, but if they are on BadgerCare and still using the ER for every little thing, we are saving nothing by having them ON BadgerCare to begin with, because as taxpayers, and medical service users, we are paying for them either way. Isn't the idea of BadgerCare is to give the poor access to preventable health care? I'm wondering if there's some quantifiable way to see if the dollars are well spend.

I know studies have shown that those with insurance tend to use medical services a lot more than those without...which seems obvious, but I'd be interested to see if the amount of emergency room visits increased when BadgerCare enrollment went up, and if they subsequently went down when the eligibility standards were rolled back.

@oak creek resident...It's time to tone down the rhetoric and start dealing in the truth. Union employees are no longer an issue and, for that matter, never have been. Most full time students aren't living off mommy and daddy, but are living off of work and student loans. There aren't nearly the numbers living off of welfare as you portray. I have to ask you why you insist of depicting the situation as worse than it really is.

You're ignoring the difference between to personal income tax rates and corporate income taxes, which I would actually agree with reducing.

The rich, as in rich individuals do not boost the economy with enough consumption to warrant their tax breaks. As Hanauer said in another venue -- he makes 300 times the yearly income of the average worker, yet his family owns three cars, not three hundred. He doesn't have three hundred houses, nor does he watch three hundred TVs. And so on.

I think what's most important here is that Hanauer describes the economy as a symbiotic relationship. This is the most critical fact to me. If you have a symbiotic relationship, policy changes need to look at both sides, not just one.

@The Anti-Alinsky...It's not as simple as you proclaim. Labor is not just a quantitative variable but also a qualitative variable. Any business owner is dependent on a certain number of employees that have core competencies. Competency only comes over time with training and meeting or exceeding production demands.

The other problem rests with the business owner's expectations for return on investment. Profits are not the only thing that drive business, but the discerned value of the product or service offered and the market price that can be achieved. To determine pricing based on labor costs is only part of the metrics. All of this makes the value of labor very complicated.

You also assume that all wealth is made, but there is a large share that is inherited. Mit Romney is a prime example, he started out wealthy and has only built on the base. George W. Bush is another example, but he is generally regarded as a failed businessman. Even with all of his early opportunities, he still failed.

I'm just curious, is there a fixed amount of money that is split up, or a fixed amount of wealth that is divvied up in the world?

I am unaware, or perhaps unable to comprehend, how much of Bill Gates' money, or Warren Buffet's money, or anyone elses for that matters, has affected how much potential I have to make money. If they earn $100, does that mean that there's 100$ less that I have the potential to earn?

Ok Randy, lets say Mr Moneybags makes 300 times more than I do this year. He already has the three cars he wants, the HD TVs in the rooms he want's, and owns a vaction home and yacht that he doesn't want to trade up for. So what does he do with his extra money?
It's how the rich get richer, he invests it. That investment drives existing and new jobs.

Lyle, Lyle, Lyle. Even if the money is inherited, what happens to it? Most heirs don't rush and wast the money on foolish things. They leave it invested in the family business which again, drives existing and new jobs.

As far as Romey "inheriting his wealth", read this politifact article. While he did have a comfortable life, he spent his money on a high quality education, gave away his inheritance, and built his own fortune.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/20/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-he-didnt-inherit-money-his-parent/

And yes, it really is that simple. For some reason you just want to make it more difficult than it has to be.

Mr. Moneybags invests his money in Apple, but there's no increased demand for iPads, so, no new jobs. He invests his money in Chrysler, but no one has the money to buy Jeeps, so no new jobs. He invests it in a building supply company, but there';s no demand for news construction so, no new jobs.

The country is not currently lacking the capital for business growth -- it's lacking the demand.

@Randy
Please put a dollar figure to this stupid notion. What should people be given (and what should therefore be taken) in order to increase demand?

If investment stops because you redistributed it to a consumer, how does apple innovate. Should we be condemned to live with the original MAC because you gave the money for purchasing and stole the money from investing?

Good God Randy you can't be this dense. You purchase Apple stock, Apple has your money in invest in new products, it's how capital is created. You are slipping old man.

Demand for iPads is at record highs. Moneybags gets return, demand created or sustained jobs. /end

One last comment to add to JB, Alfred and Steve's brilliant ones:
If Moneybags doesn't do his research and invests in a firm or product that is not selling, he ends up losing his money. It's not wasted since the workers get paid, but he doesn't get any return on his investment.

Al, let's give it a break for awhile and enjoy the quiet of no negative ads or robo-calls. No need to go after Lyle. Your guy ( and mine) won. He is aware of that, trust me.

That was a tad simplistic, Anti. For one thing, it didn't explain how anyone in his town could afford boots if he was getting his labor for free and wasn't hiring townspeople to make them. And when was that cartoon made? Looks like its over fifty years old.

Randy you really are a doof.
Go ahead and hold onto your ignorance. In the mean time Governor Walker is moving this state forward by creating an environment where we will grow jobs and prosper.
You just go ahead and stay bitter and miserable while the rest of the state celebrates.

And yes, it is that simple!!!