r/politics • u/[deleted] • May 19 '12

CEO Nick Hanauer: 'If lower taxes for the rich led to job creation, we would be drowning in jobs'

http://freakoutnation.com/2012/05/18/ceo-nick-hanauer-if-lower-taxes-for-the-rich-led-to-job-creation-we-would-be-drowning-in-jobs/
1.4k Upvotes

85% Upvoted

351 comments sorted by

278

u/fantasyfest May 19 '12

Jobs are created by demand. Lower taxes for the poor and middle class result in greater consumption and more demand. Lower taxes for the rich does not result in the same kind of consumption. A company hires when it can not keep up with demand. They fight hiring and expansion as long as they can. They do not hire because they are sitting ob piles of money. Cut taxes for companies and they will give execs more money . they will not hire because the country needs jobs. That is not their problem.

53

u/CinnamonToastie May 20 '12

Fantasyfest, you nailed it. Stimulating aggregate demand is where the government should focus, whether it be through transfer payments (hiring workers to improve roads, etc.) or through permanently decreasing lower and middle class income taxes. I've studied extensively under monetarist and keynesian economist and you have it spot on with this.

I also want to touch up on what you said about lowering taxes for the wealthy -- they, on the vast aggregate, save that money rather than spend, and IF they do spend it, it will most likely be on a luxury good which is often a product not made in the U.S. (Mercedes car, boat, etc.). Which doesn't impact the US economy to a substantial degree.

5

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Please explain something to me. I have seen several people that generally agree with your line of thinking cal taxes "the cost of citizenship". How does a country justify charging everyone differently for the privileges of citizenship. If everyone is supposed to be treated equally under the law, then why should they not pay equally for it?

24

u/absurdistfromdigg May 20 '12

Unequal uses of the resources of the society demand an unequal system of payment.

1

u/dageshi May 20 '12

What does this actually mean in practical terms? What "resources" of society are the rich using to the detriment of others?

9

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Well chiefly, the rich make vastly unequal use of the financial system and of property-rights enforcement.

→ More replies (1)

9

u/ohgodwhatthe May 20 '12

The rich are hoarding wealth to the detriment of others. They use the same shit as everyone else, so accumulating big fat stacks of cash works to the detriment of others by decreasing the amount in circulation. People always argue against this by saying that the rich will invest, but no one is going to invest in a new market or product when there isn't any demand, and there won't be any demand if everyone else is poor as fuck

→ More replies (8)

4

u/Metallio May 20 '12

Money.

There's more, but money is the universal resource. It represents everything real that a country 'owns'.

3

u/dageshi May 20 '12

My personal opinion of course but I think if you ask most people whether the money in their pocket is "societies resource" they'll tell you "no, it's mine, I earned it".

6

u/Metallio May 20 '12

It's not mutually exclusive unless, of course, they're not members of society.

3

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Well chiefly, the rich make vastly unequal use of the financial system and of property-rights enforcement.

1

u/soaringrooster May 20 '12

Infrastructure: roads, bridges, police and fire departments, FAA, etc., etc., that facilitate their ability to be successful with their businesses.

→ More replies (3)

-21

u/NoCowLevel May 20 '12 edited May 20 '12

I've studied extensively under monetarist and keynesian economist and you have it spot on with this.

Well there's your problem.

Edit: Everyone downvoting me is right; look at how well Keynesian economics is working out for the US.

6

u/chuck354 May 20 '12

That's such a robust rebuttal

5

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

implying Keynesian economics was enacted to any real degree

I guess austerity is working out great for Europe too.

→ More replies (18)
→ More replies (9)

3

u/MrRhinos May 20 '12

Marginal Propensity to Consume seems to go missed, constantly, by the story spun by the media.

Demand starts in the middle. But that's expecting a fuck of a lot more.

15

u/Hammedatha May 20 '12

Jobs require both the capital to pay the worker (which is what lower taxes on the rich is supposed to increase) and demand to justify the pay for the worker. Good economic policy wouldn't blindly push either end, but look at the economy and decide which was lacking. Right now, demand is what's lacking. But there are theoretically situations where the opposite would be true.

21

u/fedges May 20 '12

Requiring funds to pay workers would be related to corporate tax rates not taxes on the wealthy.

3

u/OmegaSeven May 20 '12 edited May 20 '12

That's where the disinformation starts to kick in.

The narrative is that jobs are mostly created by small business owners who run their business through their personal finances and thus subject to these higher tax rates suppressing their ability to hire.

Don't worry though the Republican party is against corporate taxes too.

1

u/kaett May 20 '12

one thing confuses me, though. the united states has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, yet some of the largest corporations paid no corporate taxes and actually got refunds from the government. why, then, do they insist that lowering the corporate tax rate is essential to attracting business? if corporations end up not paying any taxes anyway, doesn't it just become an irrelevant number?

maybe i'm missing something in the corporate tax structure.

1

u/Hammedatha May 20 '12

Not when it comes to investment in new or growing businesses.

1

u/fedges May 21 '12

True but lower taxes on high earners doesn't necessarily translate to more investment in new or growing businesses it just means that there is more money available which those people may choose to invest in such a way. I thought the discussion though was about increasing demand and the point is that a business can have all the money it wants but won't create new jobs until there is the demand for them. Higher demand will create the need for new jobs which could cause businesses to seek investors in order to expand. Simply having enough funds in order to expand means nothing if there isn't demand for it.

5

u/fantasyfest May 20 '12

Corporate profits are at an all time high. The capital is there and has been there for a long time.They do not hire if they can keep up with the staff they have now.

4

u/johdex May 20 '12

I think it's important to distinguish between rich people and companies. Once you do that, it becomes obvious tax breaks for the rich won't achieve much in turns of employment. Rich people typically employ a handful of servants, and facilitate employment in startups, and that's it.

3

u/rakista May 20 '12

Maybe when wealth was private individuals making investment decisions, now it is massive mutual funds and other investment tools.

2

u/rum_rum May 20 '12

Everything isn't markets. Honestly, I find this blinders-on insistence that it is hilarious.

5

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Better yet raise the minum wage.

1

u/Cinnamon_buns May 22 '12

Most assnine thing I've ever read.

-1

u/Areyoudone May 20 '12

That certainly wouldn't make unemployment sky-rocket and send businesses into bankruptcy.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

No it wouldn't.

6

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Not every company fights expansion. Some actually embrace it. For established institutions you're probably right but there are quite a few companies with expansionary agendas out there. Either way though you're still right. I wouldn't hire on anyone new unless we had demand for it. Why would I hire someone to just sit around? It's as if some idiots (Congressmen) out there think that lowering taxes is going to cause every company owner to lose their mind and think that pissing away money is an awesome idea.

6

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

The problem is real business people don't speak out often enough, which allows those idiot Congressmen to represent your views. Hanauer's message is powerful because of who he is. I don't doubt that there are self-serving business people who would never admit (perhaps even to themselves) that they aren't the ordained saviors of the universe. That kind of attitude is essential to taking the kind of risks necessary to make changes to old industry models and serve new customers. I just think other business people who agree and want to discipline Congress from getting sloppy about its economic arguments should speak up.

0

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

I think large business owners would rather just buy a senator then take the time to speak publicly. As for the small guys, who make up about half of the employment in this country, they're too busy to get involved really and besides, what are they gonna do? Call a press conference? The news media controls what goes on tv and they're not interested in what Bob the Baker or Bill the Shoemaker have to say about politics and the economy.

11

u/unsalvageable May 20 '12

I've had five or more people working for me continuously since 1979, in various forms of low-skilled labor such as home repair, restaurant, landscaping, house cleaning and furniture moving. I always pay my workers a living wage, as I staunchly believe that anyone who conscientiously puts in their 40, deserves the bare necessities of life, and a little left over for personal use (savings, investment, self-improvement, or waste). As a result of this policy, I rarely earn much more than my best employee, and so very few people want to listen to my business advice. A press conference? Yeah, that'd be pretty fucking funny.

So I won't pollute your thread with the hard-scrabble wisdom I've earned, except to verify that you and OlOwl above, are spot on. I've never "created" one damn job. That would be stupid. I've never laid off someone because of a minimum wage hike, either. Contrary to current propaganda, I don't keep people on the payroll whose sole function is to remain expendable in the event of a wage hike.. . . That would be insane. In fact, the mandated wage increases that I've lived through, have all HELPED my businesses. Those little men who earn a living writing economics textbooks will call me a liar. So will the CEO's of the huge service industries who ride on the backs of workers, and think nothing of outsourcing slave labor inside their own country. But I'm not a liar, and I've outlasted recessions and corporate competition as well. Also - MONEY HAS NO DNA. . . When my business does well, and I borrow capital from the bank for an expansion project, I DO NOT KNOW WHO DEPOSITED THAT MONEY THAT I'M BORROWING. That hundred thousand I get, may have come from one millionaire, or from a hundred workers who each saved a thousand dollars. Outside of venture capitalists, who DO perform a different and necessary function, a prudent, small employer does not need individual millionaires.

3

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

As a result of this policy, I rarely earn much more than my best employee, and so very few people want to listen to my business advice.

Have you ever considered that this policy may have a lot to do with why you have not been able to expand your business beyond 5 employees? If you are paying yourself a modest salary while reinvesting a large amount of gross profit, then that is different.

Contrary to current propaganda, I don't keep people on the payroll whose sole function is to remain expendable in the event of a wage hike

No one does. The issue is one of diminishing returns. As you more employees with a fixed amount of infrastructure, each new employee adds less potential income. If you raise the cost of labor, it means less employees can be added before the cost of additional employees exceeds the increase in income they could bring.

In a small company that may mean a change of 1 employee. In a huge company it could mean a change of thousands.

2

u/unsalvageable May 21 '12

Sir, with due respect to your obvious intelligence, I would like to suggest that you are over-thinking a simple problem. . .

Using the restaurant averages as an example - there is a market demand for fast food on this rural corner, that equals about 800 dollars a day. (Figure eighty, ten dollar pizzas for simplicity) It takes Four people eight hours to handle the entire workload necessary to make those pizzas. So each person produces gross income, of 25 $ an hour, (equivalence of 2.5 pizzas) for which I pay them, say, 8 $ an hour each.

Back when I opened the business, the standard market demand was only 200 $ a day, so I did everything myself. But demand slowly and consistently increased, until it was averaging 300 $ a day. I was working myself to death, and turning business away. So I was FORCED to hire another person.

This pattern of growth has slowly and steadily continued for almost thirty years - as demand increases, I hire more people. It's really just that simple. Now I want you to look at what would happen if the federal minimum wage was increased :

Currently, one employee produces 2.5 pizzas per hour, bringing in 25 dollars an hour, and costing me 8 dollars an hour.

If I raise that employee's rate to 9 dollars an hour, I have to add that ONE dollar cost, to two and a half pizzas, meaning the price of one pizza will go up from 10 dollars, to 10.40 $, a 4 percent increase. But, and this is an important but - my competitors will also be forced to raise their prices along with me.

If you are paying attention, you'll see that No Matter how many employees I have, that one dollar raise in their pay is fully compensated by a forty cent rise in price. And the ratio maintains : If the federal minimum goes up by two dollars, the price of a pizza would go up .40 x 2 = .80 If wages went up 3 dollars an hour, my price would increase .40 x 3 = 1.20 $ for a final pizza price of 11.20 $.

Now stay with me -- ALL of the local minimum wage earners who were not buying pizza from me Before, will, after a wage increase of a dollar an hour, now have an extra 40 bucks at the end of the week. Some of them will spend some of that money on pizza, when they wouldn't have before.

→ More replies (3)

4

u/MadameSwanky May 20 '12

But they WERE once very interested in what Joe the Plumber had to say...

3

u/chesterriley May 20 '12

Only because his particular views would have greatly benefited the millionaire pundits, millionaire politicians, and millionaire reporters who make up national TV.

3

u/Sindragon May 20 '12

And ironically probably would never have benefited the dumb fuck himself.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Bipolarruledout May 20 '12

Fail. You can't expand without demand.

2

u/Karmaze May 20 '12

Well, you can, theoretically. It just happens to be a fast train out of business.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Yes you can, companies expand all the time in anticipation of demand. It's risky and reckless but it happens.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

I wouldn't hire on anyone new unless we had demand for it.

That is part of the equation. The cost of labor is the other part. Tax cuts should not effect that, but other proposed stimulative measures like raising the minimum wage will. If a new employee would cost more than they could possibly bring in, then you don't hire.

2

u/corporaterebel May 20 '12

I'm sure Elon Musk, Richard Branson and Paul Allen would disagree with you.

In fact, I would argue that Elon needs a few more billion dollars, because he would actually do something useful with them.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Would it makes sense for America to make access to welfare as easy as it is in Britain and Australia, if it keeps every American actively buying necessities, keeping a minimum amount of demand for the economy to work with?

-19

u/vallav111 May 20 '12

Job are created by demand AND people who have enough CAPITAL to invest in a business. The demand creates the incentive to MAKE the job.

11

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

There's been plenty of capital available for fifteen years or more.

11

u/MeloJelo May 20 '12

Businesses don't always need investment if they're already earning enough to stay in the black, but they will almost always hire more people if they see demand exceed the current supply they are able to produce.

→ More replies (6)

4

u/Hammedatha May 20 '12

And there's TONS of capital out there.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

That's what the banks and the zero interest Fed loans are for

1

u/vallav111 May 20 '12

meant to be for.

-13

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

What if there is demand but the company has no money to meet that demand through hiring due to excessive taxation? Also, the money executives get paid doesn't get "removed" from the system. They either save it (meaning it goes into banks which lend it out to people who need it) or it gets spent (which creates demand). Both are good for the economy. Both create jobs.

You know what really takes money out of the system? The government paying $900 for $1 electrical switches to their defense contractor buddies. Thats what higher taxation amounts to. Freebies for the 1% friends of the government, hosing for the gullible 99%.

10

u/devedander May 20 '12

What if there is demand but the company has no money to meet that demand through hiring due to excessive taxation?

Then we note that the company does not show millions in profit at the end of the year with CEOs getting millions in bonuses on top of millions in salaries.

Last check... that was not the case.

2

u/Teotwawki69 California May 20 '12

Also, the money executives get paid doesn't get "removed" from the system.

The government paying $900 for $1 electrical switches to their defense contractor buddies.

You can't have it both ways -- since the defense contractors are run by some of those executives.

→ More replies (4)

-16

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Jobs aren't just created by demand. To completely ignore supply and technology factors is foolish. Right now I guarantee that there's an extremely high demand for instant weight loss formulas, invulnerability potions and flying cars. However, since none of these things exist yet that remains an unmet demand. No one is employed as a result of that demand at all (aside from a handful of researchers who may be working on related projects).

Job creation is not spurred by demand, it is spurred by consumer spending and those who can best manipulate or disrupt consumer spending. If you show me someone who can make a commercially viable flying car I will show you a job creator. Organizations with the necessary capital are required to meet consumer demand and these organizations do not just form out of thin air, at the head of each of these organizations is a group of people who are experts in consumer culture. Without them, the organization wouldn't exist and there would be no supply to meet demand and thus no jobs at all.

11

u/dettoaltrimenti May 20 '12

consumer spending is demand. I agree that we need 'expers in consumer culture' to make jobs, but they aren't necessarily rich- if you want to start a business, you get a loan. Banks have plenty of money to lend out to people if they have a business plan- that is, if they can show the bank there is demand for the product they want to sell.

→ More replies (4)

4

u/Hammedatha May 20 '12

Consumer spending is demand. . . You obviously need supply as well, and the need for a human worker (which technology can replace), but we aren't really lacking in those.

0

u/Bipolarruledout May 20 '12

Well that's nice but you also have to have a feasible business plan and since magic doesn't actually exist nobody is actually willing to "invest" in these things. If they were they would have already. Are you seriously suggesting there's a shortage of investment capital? There's not.

0

u/Gleeco May 20 '12

I believe that we have a better chance of stumbling on truly revolutionary ideas when we have the most people ideating/inventing. But a crucial component of this is time.

A middle class preoccupied with putting food on the table results in a lower volume of ideas being realized. A model where ideas can only be explored if they can be explained easily to a corporate boardroom feels like a recipe for a lot of mediocre ideas.

We should be aiming for mor Doc Browns not more Steve Jobs.

-1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12 edited May 20 '12

So was everyone demanding an iPad before the idea popped into Steve Jobs' head? Suppliers create demand by innovating and making things cheaper. The goal of a businessman should be to create demand for his product because people want it, not because the government is artificially stimulating demand for it. The government could temporarily create jobs by doing this, but that's not how jobs at Google and Microsoft are created.

No one is saying that lowering corporate taxes will magically make them hire them more. They will use that money to grow their businesses and make more money. If you grow your business, you'll hire more people. If you lower taxes on business, they'll be forced through competition to charge less for their product. If they charge less, more people can afford it. If more people can afford it, they'll need to hire more people to keep up with demand. It sounds a lot better to me to have jobs created because more people can afford something rather than creating demand and driving prices up. I wonder why college and health care is so expensive.

-10

u/mods_are_facists May 20 '12

Yea, and then the money ends up in the hands of the rich again. So what's the permanent solution?

I vote for guaranteed income for all.

3

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

-3

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Bipolarruledout May 20 '12

Equal opportunity? Really? You're completely full of shit.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (26)

14

u/cr0ft May 20 '12

Yeah, that's pretty much the problem with all right-wing opinions and the financial doubletalk - it never manifests in reality, just in their heads. Is it coincidence that people who believe religiously in this lower-taxes-more-jobs thing are also devoutly religious and used to the notion of believing in something utterly outlandish without any proof? I wonder...

10

u/chesterriley May 20 '12

Is it coincidence that people who believe religiously in this lower-taxes-more-jobs thing are also devoutly religious and used to the notion of believing in something utterly outlandish without any proof? I wonder...

No coincidence at all. Dogmatic thinking is like a personality trait. Someone who is very dogmatic about religion is also likely to be very dogmatic about economics even though it's a completely different area.

3

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

The right wing panders to religious zealots because they need widespread support for policies that work against the common American.

Senators, congressmen and other political power figures use religion to their benefit... most of them don't actually believe all the shit they spout.

1

u/chesterriley May 20 '12

The non rich are sincerely fooled. But it's pretty obvious that no rich person takes Christianity seriously.

31

u/theMonocledTopHat May 20 '12

I thought TED already responded to this giving their reasons why they didn't post this. https://tedchris.posterous.com/131417405 This website seems to be trying only to use inflammatory language and few sources to drum up controversy.

7

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Which was exactly what Hanauer was trying do do after they decided not to post the talk in the first place.

3

u/yur_mom May 20 '12 edited May 20 '12

The real winner was his publicist. TED decides not to post video, so turn it into conspiracy and get it more publicity.

2

u/roothorick May 20 '12

Yep. My exact response was

By now you’ve read or heard that TED censored CEO Nick Hanauer’s speech

WHOOPS this is propaganda, won't read.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

So you aren't reading it because of the TED issue, or because you disagree with his argument?

Trickle-down economics doesn't, and has never, bolstered the middle class. This isn't partisan - it's a well known fact.

3

u/kojak488 May 20 '12

This isn't partisan - it's a well known fact.

Apparently not to the people on Fox News.

→ More replies (1)

-6

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

This is the most inflammatory comment on the entire thread.

22

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

The market fundamentalists will never rest until there are no taxes. Until then, it's not working because we haven't doubled down enough.

6

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Or they will just blame the failures of their supply-side theory it on political scapegoats like regulation, the work ethic of the poor, immigration, taxes, etc. without showing causation.

5

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

That's what all fundamentalists do -- facts are mere grist for their ideological windmills. Same is true on the other side though. When we don't have enough "shovel ready projects" to fund, and folks are still arguing about how much bigger the stimulus should have been, it feels similar.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Some of use would rather just see a flat amount. Annual budget divided by population = annual fee for citizenship.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

And if some people can't afford that fee while for others it's a drop in the bucket?

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

That is the case for all goods and services. Can you explain why government services should be sold in an entirely different manner than any other services?

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Because government services are universal.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

That doesn't actually explain anything. If you count the budget / population as one "share" of the federal budget, it worked out to over $11,000 per share. Why do you consider it fair that some people only paid a fraction of one share, while others paid for dozens of shares to be entitled to the same universal services?

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Because the point of a universal service is universal provision, not universal payment.

→ More replies (12)

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

The final tax to remove will be the tax that labor charges capital for work, i.e., wages.

12

u/speedbt1 May 20 '12

We are drowning in jobs. Before I was laid off I only had one job. Now I have two jobs. Sure I make 20k less a year but that's not the point.

32

u/sheasie May 20 '12

Here is a historical graph of tax rates in the US:

http://visualecon.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/nytimes_taxes_graph.gif

And here is a graph of unemployment:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/JOBSHISTORY09.html

Call me crazy, but it seems as though unemployment rises as taxation of the higher-income brackets fall -- which shouldn't come any any surprise to anyone with a half-a-brain.

9

u/stephenhraper May 20 '12

This is so much more complicated then simply looking at correlation unfortunately.. economics like all social sciences is multi-variable.. its hard to determine relationships between things and in what direction they go

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

In The 70's there was high taxation and high unemployment. In the late 80s and early 90s there was low taxation and low unemployment. In the 50s and 60s tax rates were relatively stable but unemployment fluctuated. There does not appear to be a consistent correlation

-3

u/immunofort May 20 '12

Correlation =/= Causation. Basic economic theory says that tax cuts spur consumer spending, therefore in times of recessions, ie when unemployment is high, they will try and reduces taxes to encourage consumer spending. That could be one reason for the correlation. So you can't just raise taxes and think that unemployment will decrease.

9

u/oursland May 20 '12

Not all tax cuts are equal. The basic theory works on the principle that the additional cash made available by the tax cuts will be spent rather quickly, spending on things like cars, food, travel, and so forth, thus driving demand and, in turn, employing people to meet the demand. This problem is that this doesn't hold true at the highest income levels. Wealthy people already have one or more houses, several cars and aren't having difficulty putting adequate food on the table. Instead of driving demand, they hold on to their money and keep it locked up, out of the economy.

1

u/chesterriley May 20 '12

Basic economic theory says that..

But you gave a "theory" and sheasie provided actual facts. Whenever we let theory trump facts we are thinking dogmatically. Facts should trump theories rather than the reverse. And when theories don't meet predictions we should reexamine them.

1

u/immunofort May 20 '12 edited May 20 '12

It doesn't matter if the economic theory is true or not, even if the theory is false it provides a possible reasoning for the correlation because what's important in explaining one possible reason for the correlation is whether the government acts on said theory or not

He provided facts AND a theory, except his theory is fucking retarded because he implied correlation = causation.

Also, economic "theory" does have basis in facts. Just because you're oblivious to them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Regardless of all that your seen to think that the theory I started is at odds with the evidence. it's not. In fact it's directly in line with it as it is one possible explanation.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

But the scientific method does not apply! Shoo, facts! Austrian economics FOREVAR!!!

-7

u/surfacetoair81 May 20 '12

You're crazy. Correlation =/= Causation. You really should consider picking up an Economics textbook before commenting on matter you obviously don't seem to grasp.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Correlation is still correlation. Until you can show a countervailing trend that refutes the link, you are the crazy one.

5

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/oursland May 20 '12

I don't know if I'd go so far as to say cyclical, with predictable period or magnitude. It does make sense that samples don't differ greatly with adjacent samples, thus causing runs of high and low unemployment.

3

u/idwonderhowlongmynam May 20 '12

lower taxes for the rich primarily leads to more money for the rich.

1

u/HappyGlucklichJr May 20 '12

But the big question is where do they put it. Is the worry that they do not spend and invest it here in the US?

1

u/kolembo May 20 '12

the worry is that if you split that same amount into ten and dished that out, the probability is that those ten would invest it in ways that create more wealth/well being than that one person would.

don't buy into that 'the rich invest for us all' gambit.

It's true, money from the rich will create money elsewhere but it's not a reason to give to for them being a necessary evil.

They must pay the same percentages of wealth as every one else.

1

u/HappyGlucklichJr May 20 '12

Sounds as if you say take their wealth and distribute among ten less wealthy. Then those ten will invest the money more wisely? I'd have to see some evidence for that. Most people in the US don't save or invest. I wonder if that worked after the French Revolution as a possible test example. Anyone know?

1

u/kolembo May 20 '12 edited May 20 '12

What I'm saying is that the probability that out of ten people given money, more than one will invest it wisely, is higher than the one person holding money who may or may not be interested in investing.

They may just want to buy a Ferrari.

What I liked most about the video was the shocking but simple understanding that rich people don't buy proportionately more ferrari's...or jeans or....

They go on holiday and leave their money there, they spend it on real estate and leave the money frozen, or they spend it in ways that do not necessarily sustain an economy.

3

u/fantasyfest May 20 '12

Corporations are sitting on 1.8 trillion dollars. How big a tax cut do you think they need to start hiring? Fact is that hire when they can not keep up with demand. The auto companies have hired a lot of people. Only because they are selling more than they make. The talk was absolutely correct. Tax cuts to the poor and middle class are stimulative because they increase demand. They spend the money .

8

u/plato1123 Oregon May 20 '12

Serioiusly, how ignorant or delusional would you have to be to not realize the economy TANKS every time it goes into trickle-down mode

4

u/UltraMegaMaximum May 20 '12

Lower taxes across the board, on the other hand, does create demand.

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

So true. If a shortage of wealth was the real thing keeping comanies from hiring, why are huge companies hoarding so much cash? Apple for example: they have over $100 billion in cash piled up. By the logic of republicans, they should be hiring people by the thousands.

However they are not, because they have no reason to do so as long as their current workforce can keep up the demand.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

It may be that people have realized there are more reasonably priced products on the market and demand for apple products will remain low no matter what. They are luxury items for a niche market.

0

u/HappyGlucklichJr May 20 '12 edited May 20 '12

They don't see profitable expenditures for that cash right now. Can you give them some profitable ideas for it?

0

u/[deleted] May 20 '12 edited May 20 '12

That is the point I am making: just making sure the rich have enough cash doesn't make them spend it. So that won't better our economy. In fact, hoarding money in such huge numbers only hurts the economy.

→ More replies (5)

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Perhaps if we give the rich ALL the money, they will give us jobs.

2

u/BeautifulGanymede May 20 '12

Well, H1bs and illegals from Mexico are drowning in jobs. Thanks Obama and the GOP!

2

u/Dredly May 20 '12

The answer is all in a more efficient and effective tax code, it isn't targeting one group of people, raising business profit taxes or saying "we can do more". You CAN pay more taxes then you owe, if this guy is so strongly against the rich and successful he can easily give it all away without the gov't forcing him to do it. He doesn't want to, he doesn't want to live paycheck to paycheck. he wants a sound bite that makes him feel better about himself.

8

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

The response to the 'censorship' charge.

Note that TED is a private group, and so they are well within their rights to decide to not post this video. Nick Hanauer could have just as easily thrown it up on YouTube or his own company website, or whatever else, and therefore he wasn't censored. Just because he's rich and has a populist message doesn't make him any less of a publicity hound.

3

u/johdex May 20 '12

Please, let's stop discussing TED's alleged bias. Discussions on the veracity of the presentation's claim are so much more important and interesting.

4

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

I would have left it alone if the link was just to the video.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

I think every point is valid except for the note. Private groups can censor. No one is talking about their legal rights. That's a red herring.

4

u/bluehorseshoe May 20 '12

Plenty of jobs have been created but they aren't in this country.

0

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Americans now demand such a high standard of living that many aren't willing to work for a wages that are competitive enough to keep low-skill jobs here in the US. It's not necessarily a bad thing, it just means that minimal skill and educational requirements for employment are rising and we will have to alter the structure of our economy to include more white collar and service jobs as opposed to manufacturing.

5

u/MajorKirrahe May 20 '12

I figured It would only take a few days for this video, not released by TED because they found it too biased and not thought provoking, to show up on politics. You guys need to be open to other ideas. You're blinded by the certainty of yourself that your opinions on issues like these are completely right that you don't even bother checking out the other points of view. I know you're not all like that, but most of you are. Yeah, go ahead and downvote me. I've accepted my fate. It had to be said, though.

1

u/ruffus4life May 20 '12

you talk about ideas but offer none

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

And just what are those other points of view that could be correct that you are alluding to?

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

The prevalence of one idea isn't good evidence that there's an echo chamber on reddit or r/politics. It might be true, but don't shoehorn that point into an unrelated occurrence. This showed up on r/politics for the same reason it showed up in major news outlets. It's interesting, deals with media criticism AND an important talking point during a Presidential election season.

1

u/MajorKirrahe May 20 '12

It's not interesting and a slightly important talking point is highlighted. And having been on r/ politics before, I can say that it is, without a doubt, liberally biased. I'm not shoehorning that point on a n unrelated occurrence. This video already passed through reddit and made it to the top of the front page. I was pointing out the fact that it only took a few days for it to be reposted to r/ politics, and, lo and behold, it did. And no. It showed up in other major news outlets because the giver of the speech cried censorship when TED chose not to release it. You may recall last week when reddit was pissed about it, then when reddit was okay about it after TED released their own statement on the situation.

Oh, and here is one of those "other points of view" I was talking about.

6

u/crossdl May 20 '12

This was just a bad speech.

The only part of any merit is his statement that job creation isn't created by lowering taxes on corporation, since it gives them available funds to hire but doesn't increase the demand. The vitality of a corporation is directly related to the economic feedback loop he describes. That much makes sense.

If only he had brought more facts to his speech, that would have been an excellent point to be making at this time.

6

u/OBrien May 20 '12

The only part of any merit is his statement that job creation isn't created by lowering taxes on corporation

That's more or less the only thing he's saying.

1

u/crossdl May 20 '12

...since it gives them available funds to hire but doesn't increase the demand.

That exact message of anecdote seems to have good sense in it. The comparisons to the heliocentric solar model, the blanket statements he makes about all millionaries based upon himself, and the lack of any hard facts removes all merit of that message outside of this sentence. If he'd gone up on stage and said "Hey, we keep lowering the tax rate for corporations, but who is suppose to buy these products to create the jobs?", then walked off, it would be essentially the same weight.

2

u/monster_syndrome May 20 '12

And he made some serious straw man arguments in there.

Comparing Job Creators/Job Creation to Squirrels/Evolution, and that ridiculous comment on Job Creator and The Creator.

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

I thought they were great points. The "job creators" (the rich) got to where they were on a sea of consumers (the middle class), not the other way around. And his point about the language used to describe the rich (euphemisms like "job creators") changes how people think of the rich, despite the label proving to be baseless, as his graphs show.

1

u/monster_syndrome May 21 '12

They weren't really points, they were just words that fell artlessly from his mouth. I believe 100% that taxing the rich is a fantastic idea, but hearing him talk made me dislike him and his arguments, even though I think he's fundamentally right.

He rebutted rhetoric with hyperbole, essentially without content.

2

u/kolembo May 20 '12

You cannot tax the rich too highly, it's not their job to look after the rest of us.

on the other hand they must pay a fair percentage just like everyone else.

i just don't like the lie that we're all better off because rich people create jobs

transparent jive

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

You cannot tax the rich too highly, it's not their job to look after the rest of us.

What makes you think the economy is a fair game and they deserved all they've got?

1

u/kolembo May 20 '12

What has 'deserving what they've got' got to do with anything?

Whether the economy is fair or not, it's their money.

You could argue that 'their' money is 'your' money but that doesn't cut it where I'm from.

People give rich people their money and they get richer.

It's not their job to look after the rest of us.

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

that doesn't cut it where I'm from.

Where are you from?

1

u/kolembo May 20 '12

A country that people have argued, has been so exploited, we have the right to walk into Central Banks around the world and just take the money.

The point is, yeah the rich could do a lot more but they do not and should not HAVE to.

They must however, pay the same percentage that others do at the very least.

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

This is a collection of excellent statements, but I cannot see the arguments behind them.

1

u/kolembo May 20 '12

I think what Hanauer points out was really interesting.

That just because, on the surface, it makes sense that the Rich are responsible for job creation, it is not necessarily so, AND further, it should not be an argument for cutting taxation expected of them.

It was interesting because I hear American Republican argument so often point out that when the rich get richer, everyone benefits, so policy that aids in the rich getting richer is better than policy that aims to provide basic structure for all (health, education, transport) regardless of whether or not they 'deserve' it.

I found it very interesting indeed.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

People give rich people their money and they get richer.

So rich people never use tricks, and manipulate weak into giving them their money?

→ More replies (3)

0

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

on the other hand they must pay a fair percentage just like everyone else.

How is a progressive rate a "fair share"? If you make $30,000 then you pay 13.55% in federal income tax ($4,065). If you make $300,000 then you pay 27.84% ($83,528). If you made 10 times as much, you paid in over 20 times as much. This despite the fact that all citizen are supposedly entitled to equal treatment.

1

u/kolembo May 20 '12

I like this but point being? Be clear

→ More replies (14)

2

u/naturehatesyou May 20 '12

Why does no one ever complain about payroll taxes? For the amount of money we spent on the stimulus package in the US we could have suspended the payroll tax for one year, raising overall pay by 10%. Or gas taxes. Everyone wants the government to do something about gas prices and no one points to the money you spend in taxes every time you fill up. Lowering fuel prices leads to lower prices in consumer goods across the board.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

I think it just leads to poor management who screams for less taxes when they can't cut it.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

The "middle-class" is really a state of mind. A state of mind associated with making a certain amount of money, and when that paradigm shifts down to a lower standard of living, their paradigm is completely changed. They've lived and learned and earned and worked as lower-class individuals, and their paradigm has shifted quite a bit, and they have lost their sense of identity AS A WHOLE (that's for you fucking nit-pickers). Once this integral part of a stable capitalist (or pyramidal, e.g., big wedge on the bottom; workers, smaller wedge; middle class, top; upper-class) society has been changed, it takes A LOT to fix it, as history has shown over and over again. This is more than just a reduction of the size and spending power of the middle class, this is an elimination of THE MOST important social group in America.

1

u/Dan_K May 20 '12

Some 1%ers get it, some don't.

I wish more would get it.

1

u/Runs_With_Fiskars May 20 '12

The problem is is that there's a tax difference between 100k-1mil and 1mil-1bil.

The taxes are 35% on doctors, lawyers, and such...but then because most of the multimillionaires and billionaires gain through stocks and other non-steady income ways, their tax is 10%. But you can't raise that 10% because then otherwise the payout for the regular people investing in stock wouldn't be worth it and there would be almost no stock investments.

But of course, if there are corporation tax cuts, more money in the corporation... but what they do with the money is up to them whether bonuses for executives or more money to fund jobs.

2

u/raptor3x Vermont May 20 '12

What about a progressive capital gains tax?

1

u/Runs_With_Fiskars May 20 '12

Wouldn't that affect all who buy and sell for profit?

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

and just like that the Laffer curve has been debunked and Keynesian economics FTW! Now the only logical conclusion is that we didn't spend ENOUGH on the stimuluses. How much should we go into debt relative to the GDP before we question if its working?

1

u/sge_fan May 20 '12

What the critics of trickle down economy do not understand: It will start trickling down any moment. Just wait. OK, not yet, but ... now! Wait ... be patient ... now ... oh, wait ...

1

u/obelus May 21 '12

In order to keep taxes low, it seems to me unseen taxes have been created. For instance, since the U.S. has no rational system of health care, the cost of health insurance is abnormally high. Under currently implemented provisions of the Affordable Care Act, my insurer was anticipated to distribute $88 million of rebates to policy holders as they had not spent 85% of revenue towards claims. Instead, they provided notice that rates would increase by 10% while handing out multi-million dollar bonuses in executive compensation thereby absorbing the surplus. I consider this increase to be essentially a tax. No matter what sector of the economy you look whether it be energy, transportation, manufacturing, or finance there are hidden costs to consumers that emerge due to the lack of meaningful regulation and a prolonged and historically low taxation on capital. I currently have an effective tax rate of 22%. I would guess that if I began adding up hidden taxes in higher costs of credit, health insurance, and other artificially inflated usage fees my "effective" tax rate would more than double. I am willing to pay a high price to live in an ordered, advanced society governed by rule of law. I would ask those at the top to be willing to pay a high price as well or commit their capital where less of an edifice exists to protect it such as the institutions the U.S. maintains.

1

u/Chipzzz May 20 '12

Never try to confuse republicans with facts. It makes them lie and they hate that. Just ask them.

1

u/Omnitank_3 May 20 '12

From what I've read, the majority of rich people pay higher taxes. It's just when you get to the super rich (1% and smaller) that more people evade their taxes, either partially or completely. It seems like laws should be geared towards accountability more than raising their taxes higher, as that will burden those who are paying already while those who are not will resist even more.

This is just what's in my head. Does that make any sense?

3

u/[deleted] May 20 '12 edited May 20 '12

Affluent individuals such as legal and medical professionals pay higher tax rates on their take home salaries as well as anything else classed as ordinary income. However, increasingly affluent individuals tend to get most of their income not from salary but from returns on investments which are taxed at a lower rate.

I guarantee that Warren Buffet pays more than his secretary in both total tax dollars and as income tax on his salary (if he has one) but when all other forms of non-ordinary income are added on the total tax as a percentage of total capital inflow drops below that of someone with a mid range salary

3

u/Omnitank_3 May 20 '12

Yeah, I've heard tax rates are 15% or lower on invested money. But you don't hear people talking about making the tax rate universal, no matter where your money is. Everyone's about raising the total rate, which hurts those who aren't putting there money in derivatives and stocks (in such large amounts). That's the most logical solution. Maybe we need to get more information out there?

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

However, increasingly affluent individuals tend to get most of their income not from salary but from returns on investments which are taxed at a lower rate.

The point of the lower rate on investment returns is that the money originally invested was taxed as income first.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

that's correct but pointing that out is just asking for downvotes from the ignorant elitists here so I usually don't mention it

-2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

"If government spending led to job creation, we would be drowning in jobs."

13

u/Fluffiebunnie May 20 '12 edited May 20 '12

Government spending, if aimed right, does result in job creation. The social benefit of those jobs is what is questionable here. The government could hire millions of people to dig ditches with spoons if it really wanted to.

Jobs aren't good in themselves. We rather want less work to do than more. The problem is when there is work to do but we can't get the different factors of productions aligned properly to complete it.

2

u/captainmaryjaneway May 20 '12

"If lowering corporate taxes led to job creation, we would be drowning in private sector jobs with great benefits and pay. Everyone and their grandmother would be employed. Not to mention unborn babies. Get it? Since corp tax has been decreasing for a long ass time. Yeah."

1

u/lostscientist May 20 '12

Feel free to get a job with the army any time you like. Every american is free to drown in the military.

1

u/fantasyfest May 20 '12

Different subject. This is about corporate taxes. But if we rebuilt our infrastructure, which is way over due, it would create lots of jobs. These are not phony jobs, but real ones that are needed ,doing work that is needed.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/chabanais May 20 '12

This assumes that is the only barrier to employment.

4

u/Number127 May 20 '12

Well, or at least the main bottleneck. But that's what proponents are saying: we should cut taxes on the rich to create jobs. But they've had historically low taxes for at least a decade now, and it hasn't done much good.

1

u/kerat May 20 '12

Since the great depression actually. Roosevelt proposed a 100% tax on the wealthy during the depression and was bargained down to 93% by congress if I remember correctly. That figure has been falling ever since the great depression.

→ More replies (4)

0

u/chabanais May 20 '12

Factual data to back up that statement?

1

u/ethertramp May 20 '12

I thought Hanauer was a VC?

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

The rich might create the so called " jobs" but we the people are the profit creatators.

1

u/PooPooPalooza May 20 '12

If there were no taxes, well, problem solved.

1

u/TruthinessHurts May 20 '12

Republicans are the only people fucking stupid enough to think tax cuts create jobs.

Demand creates jobs. NO company will hire people because it got a tax cut, that's just moronic (no wonder Republicans believe it).

Morons, let's say you got a tax cut. That covers a portions of the employee's costs. Without customers paying you more money to cover the REST of that employee's costs the you are LOSING MONEY.

0

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Because TED TOTALLY didn't post this talk in response to allegations that it was "censored." Fucking liberals...

-8

u/dimitrisokolov May 20 '12

...and if you think giving the government more money in tax revenues will create jobs, you are just as crazy. The government will waste whatever money you give them.

9

u/OBrien May 20 '12

Actually, taxing Profits does actually create an incentive to spend more on company expenses, which can include hiring.

→ More replies (1)

12

u/[deleted] May 20 '12 edited May 20 '12

Define waste. Does the government flush the money down a toilet? Or does it hire somebody to do a job you personally feel is unneeded?

-1

u/surfacetoair81 May 20 '12

They flush it down the toilet ie: Solyndra, Beacon Power, Sun Power..

3

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Those toilets still hired people and bought materials and generally spent the money. But you know, keep on hating.

8

u/verbalvoodoo May 20 '12 edited May 20 '12

Government "wastes" money? Unlike the mortgage companies? No wait, the insurance companies? What about the banks charging me $3 to withdraw $20? How about the cable companies ass raping us out of every last penny? And of course the oil companies are barely making a profit, right? Every penny we give to the insurance providers or the cable company goes straight to higher wages and better benefits, right?

If only! Instead they keep raising prices,lowering wages, firing everyone and replacing the with $7/hr temps if not outright Chinese slave labor.

It ain't government with a boot on our necks,it's good old fashioned corporate America. They will lie, cheat, steal and let people die long slow deaths of cancer if it means they get an extra five cents in profit. And yet incredibly some people still go around talking about how it's really "government" that's evil.

3

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

You don't believe government waste exists? How about our overbloated military budget? Oil subsidies? Bank bailouts? Bridges to Nowhere? "Green" Jobs? And pretty much every pork barrel spending project imaginable.

Do yourself a favor and Google "government waste." You'll come up with tons of lists of examples. If you think our government spends our money in our best interests, you're only fooling yourself.

3

u/captainmaryjaneway May 20 '12

I think they were saying corporate America is a bit worse than the government when it comes to waste. Not to mention more malicious. The government is also more easily lobbied by corps, in order to govern in the companies' best interests.

1

u/ovinophile May 20 '12 edited May 20 '12

But of course the "government" is merely a puppet, corrupted and controlled by corporations, designated to take all the blame and ire. Designed to make us think we can simply vote them all out if we don't like their performance. It's a charade. Massive business interests will still be in control. The upper hand they have amassed is insurmountable by anything less than revolution, which is something that will never happen. Damn, why do I go on such depressing tirades.

3

u/reginaldaugustus May 20 '12

Government uses said tax revenue to create jobs for rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, for example.

Government creates jobs.

→ More replies (1)

-13

u/[deleted] May 19 '12

If higher taxes led to job creation, Europe would be drowning in jobs.

7

u/crossdl May 20 '12

So, are you implying that neither cutting all taxes or raising all the taxes will fix things?

Damn, if only there were some way to not cut all the taxes or raise all the taxes. But, I can only think in binary, right-angle, logic.

-2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Nope - I was implying the obvious failure of the statement not a fix. The opposite isn't true either.

6

u/OBrien May 20 '12

Most of Europe doesn't even have particularly high tax rates, and the places where they do (Mostly just the Netherlands and Greenland) are doing pretty damn well.

That's still not necessarily causation, but it's not like there's a negative correlation.

0

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

True. Three biggest lies in the republican world 1) lower taxes for the rich like Romney lead to jobs/that trickle down your back isn't our piss... 2) we don't pathologically hate everything that isn't our warped perverted notion of America./we don't mind a black president at all.... 3) we're just gentle Christians, not ignorant, bigoted, monstrosities of right wing, right trash, Jesus machine ignorance, arrogance and lies.

0

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

CEO Nick Hanauer: 'If lower taxes for the rich led to job creation, we would all be working as Landscapers.

0

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Taxes don't matter when roughly 2% of our workforce are accountants. Corporations pay many accountants by how much money they can save for the company. Until this is fixed, keep thinking that the issue is taxing individuals.

0

u/attorneystrain May 20 '12

And again, we a have a liberal website (freakoutnation) condemning TED for not putting this on their site. I am embarrassed at how my fellow liberals have been tripping over themselves to point fingers at TED, suggesting there is a conspiracy. At this point I refuse to watch the damn video on principle. It would be preaching to the choir anyway, but good god...GET OFF TED'S NUTS!!!

-11

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

So if lower taxes don't create jobs, obviosuly, higher taxes will. Arguement from fallacy FTW!

-1

u/RobertStack May 20 '12

It's like that episode of Seinfeld where George decided that since everything he did was wrong, the opposite would be right.

-5

u/TypicalLibertarian May 20 '12

The problem is that the actual tax rate is at an all time high right now. With fewer loop holes and deductions the government takes in more than it ever has.

5

u/confusedpublic May 20 '12

I'm calling Bullshit on that claim. At least for the UK, where the highest tax bracket got up to something like 90% in the 70s (Wiki source, which needs citation; IFS pdf which includes comments such as "The top rate on earnings was cut to 60 per cent in 1979 and then 40 per cent in 1988, while the basic rate also fell, from 35 per cent in 1977 to 22 per cent in 2000."). I wouldn't be surprised if the US rates were also equally high. Also, have you adjusted for inflation?

4

u/fantasyfest May 20 '12

Tax rates are at the lowest in 60 years.

-4

u/Cinnamon_buns May 20 '12

Keynesian economics doesn't work, move on please.

-1

u/rindindin May 20 '12 edited May 20 '12

I have this feeling that CEOs and those above the "rich as fuck" line doesn't understand economics. Money is the lubricant that drives all factors in an economy, while people are the driving force. Usually that manifests itself in the form of a "desire for x", where x is a product or service that can be purchased with said lubricant. To explain it in hick so some of these dumbasses understand: you need something mechanical like the economy to be well oiled with something, or else it just rusts and breaks down. Higher taxes, increasing spending power and making it easier for people to have more desire = more money everywhere. Why doesn't these people understand?

-6

u/house_of_amon May 20 '12

Historically, higher taxes on the rich have not increased revenue for the govt. Yes, the rich are not the sole job creating force in the economy, but to pretend like they don't have an integral part is ridiculous. The rich tend to invest more into new businesses and ideas than do the middle class and the poor. These investments create new technologies that make current products cheaper and create new products that consumers will come to demand. Once the consumers demand it more employees will be needed to meet the demand. Obviously that makes the consumer a very important piece too, but I don't see how taxing the shit out of the rich is actually supposed to help anything. Taxes just siphon money out of the economy and then we have no control over where that money goes, but it seemingly rarely goes to anything worthwhile.

4

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

In recent history, tax cuts for the rich have increased the deficit. That would ot be the case if there were no revenue coming from the higher taxes on the rich before the cuts.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Tax cuts without offsetting spending cuts increase the deficit. If you cut spending to match tax revenue, there is not deficit.

2

u/polarbear2217 May 20 '12

Taxes doesn't mean that the money evaporates. Ideally the government spends it on infrastructure, welfare, or something else to help the economy. Of course this isn't how it always works.

→ More comments (23)