I don't know.  I work for an international company.  The owners of the company are not citizens of the U.S.  They came here to make money.  It is that simple.  In coming here to make money, they created businesses and those businesses did create jobs.  They created a business with a product that wasn't really marketed much in this country but was in their own country.  My wife also works for a company where the owners are not U.S. citizens.  They came here to make money.  They felt this was a good place to make money.

Both of our organizations have expanded over the last few years.  Both of our organizations have opened new locations in the last few years.  Both of them will probably continue to open new locations in the next few years.  Each location they open, creates a new set of jobs.

If the government taxes them at a higher level, they will have to figure that in their bottom line.  They will decide if the U.S. is the best place for them to make money.  But other people that know them from their own countries will also hear about the U.S. and whether it is the best way to make money.

Organizations in the U.S. are so complicated anymore.  They are often fueled by oversea factors.

If people decide they can make more money somewhere else, they will move their business to the place where they can make more money.  That takes the jobs with them.  So to say that businesses don't create jobs is sort of silly.

@TheTheologiansCafe - i also worked for a multinational corporation, Lehman Brothers started by U.S. citizens. the company and the others in the industry began outsourcing jobs to where they could pay pennies on the dollar. it turned into losses anyway but that's another story. so it seems that by your logic in order for corporate jobs to stay in the U.S. workers here would need to be paid pennies on the dollar too but then what happens when U.S. workers no longer have purchasing power. i'm of the opinion if a company doesn't feel the U.S. is important enough to pay more to invest in their businesses let them take their business elsewhere. there are enough people wanting to start businesses here.

and the same reply to you as on my post, the wealthy don't use their additional personal income to hire employees. as Hanauer says, if that were the case we'd be drowning in jobs right now. 

so compare the economy during the Clinton years when he raised taxes and the Bush years when taxes were cut. a great disparity in wealth preceded both the Great Depression and the Great Recession. the proof's in the pudding. 

perhaps in 20, 100, or 500 years Chinese workers will unify enough that their demand for higher pay will get them higher pay but is that what we want to gamble our future on? and who knows, the Chinese government might then simply take a page out of our book and call the rich, job creators. they need to get their shit in order as do we. if we look at the global economy it's the same deal in most countries. the rich have gotten richer and the poor, poorer be it through capitalism, communism, or fascism. that does not have to be a given unless we let it be a given. 

the point of what Hanauer says is cutting taxes to the rich does not create jobs. republicans in Congress keep saying over and over and over again we can't raise taxes on the job creators. i know Alan Greenspan, the guy on whose every utterance wall street reacted for decades, apologized for being wrong on the economy. i just learned Stockton, the man behind trickle down economics also apologized and admitted trickle down economics does not work. 

You didn't study economics, you studied Marxism. That's why what you are saying is total nonsense.

I loved these books, and thought they were both brilliant, though I liked the first better than the second. If you enjoy behavioral economics, you should look up econgirl.com. I have been following Jody Briggs for years, and I love her. 

the top 1% in the USA pays an average income tax of 24.01% and pay 36.7% of all income taxes
 the top 50% which includes that top 1% pays an average income tax of 12.50% and pays 97.7% of all income taxes

the bottom 50% pretty much pays nothing but they average a 1.85% tax rate

What is it you want to change? what would be the benefit?  and do you think that top 1% just might find better places to use that money than the USA

We also have the highest income tax rate in the world, but that is not so much a tax on the rich but a tax on US consumers. and a reason that firms that export tend to base themselves in other countries if they can

I said corporate taxes, you should try reading what I write before telling me I am wrong. I check my facts they are always well sourced.

I was asking you what you wanted. the top 50% pays it all, the bottom nothing and the top is paying 37% what do you want what should the top pay? and do you see no down side?

@trunthepaige - [I was asking you what you wanted. the top 50%
pays it all, the bottom nothing and the top is paying 37% what do you
want what should the top pay? and do you see no down side?]
Yes, but the bottom 50% only OWNS 1.5%, whereas the top 1% owns 42%. I think that's far more pertinent than just saying that the top 50% pays all the taxes. Repealing the Bush tax cuts on the rich would raise the same amount as taxing the bottom 50% HALF of all they are worth.

If you're so upset about the bottom 50% paying no taxes, shouldn't you also be upset about the top 0.1% paying LESS taxes than a middle-class family?

@GodlessLiberal - Sorry I screwed up, that was a typo and I understand why you called me on that

I would be supportive on all of your articles and blogs because they are just upto the mark.china economy