Cidu Bill on Nov 2nd 2012


Filed in Bill Bickel, CIDU, Free Range, comic strips, comics, humor | 18 responses so far

18 Responses to “Sacrifice”

  1. PeterW Nov 2nd 2012 at 12:38 am 1

    There’s a sentiment in politics that the US is giving so much to the “job creators” that it seems like the Republicans are worshipping them. And what do we get in return? Not a lot. But they want more anyway.

    In reality, “job creator” is more of a euphemism for “the top earners regardless of how they get their money” than it should be. I’d be more okay with tax cuts for job creators if it were tied to how many jobs they created than “THEY MAKE A MILLION A MONTH! IF WE TAX THEM LESS THEY MIGHT LET US SHINE THEIR SHOES!”

  2. James Pollock Nov 2nd 2012 at 02:01 am 2

    Income tax cuts for “job creators” can be demonstrated to be non-effective via simple math.
    Under present law, if a business pays its employees under $1 million per year, 100% of the wages may be deducted from revenues prior to calculating the income tax owed. Thus, the income tax rate paid by the business on money paid out as wages is 0% (unless the employees are VERY well paid), regardless of the profitability of the company itself. It doesn’t matter if the business is a non-profit (intentionally or not) or generates huge profits and pays taxes in the highest corporate tax bracket, the money paid out as wages is not taxed to the company*, no matter what tax rate the business is paying. Therefore, lowering income tax rates has no effect on hiring, because income tax rates have no impact on the cost of employing someone.

    *Payroll taxes are another matter. Part of the stimulus so reviled by Republicans (actually, it was a fairly large part of the stimulus) was a temporary reduction of the payroll tax rate. That, unlike income tax rates, affects the cost to the company of hiring more employees. Is there a catch? Yes, the government has to move money collected from other sources (like income taxes) to cover the shortfall created by cutting payroll taxes. Or, it will have to do that at some point in the future. (Alternatively, when the economy recovers they might have to jack up the payroll taxes to make up the difference. Or they could do some combination of both.)

  3. Proginoskes Nov 2nd 2012 at 02:42 am 3

    Sacrificing virgins to a volcano appeased the gods and gave good fortune to the society.

    Economics is not so certain, so I don’t understand why the comparison is relevant.

  4. Kilby Nov 2nd 2012 at 03:03 am 4

    This cartoon is comparing the (physically unrealistic) expectations of primitive cultures, who believed that sacrifices made to a god (or a volcano) would provide some sort of social benefit (better weather, good harvests, etc.), with the (economically unrealistic) expectations of an uneducated electorate that continues to believe that a single leader can magically transform a global economy in order to provide employment within their own political sector.

  5. James Pollock Nov 2nd 2012 at 03:04 am 5

    Prog, they’re standing on the one mountain that doesn’t seem to be a volcano.

  6. The Bad Seed Nov 2nd 2012 at 08:00 am 6

    Seems to be that the only new job being created might be the sacrificial virgin. I can’t help but be reminded of the (technically) true argument that I recently heard someone give, which stated that Ann Romney having the Olympic-caliber horse was actually almost a beneficent thing, because that created jobs for the all the little people along the way who had some hand in maintaining it, including the guy who she pays to muck out the stalls. That’s Trickle-Down Economics for ya: the wealthier the wealthy people get, the more gardeners and maids they kindly and selflessly give work to.

  7. Daniel J. Drazen Nov 2nd 2012 at 10:01 am 7

    Politics can be a non-rational enterprise. When the GOP lost both houses of Congress to the Democrats in the 2006 elections, the first thing President Bush did the following day was allow Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld to resign. I characterized the resignation as Rumsfeld allowing himself to be thrown into the volcano to appease the gods. So it’s a pretty useful political metaphor.

  8. Mark Jackson Nov 2nd 2012 at 10:07 am 8

    Can’t decide whether the graven image is supposed to be Simpson, Bowles, or Merkel.

  9. Kilby Nov 2nd 2012 at 10:44 am 9

    @8 - Look at the downward-pointing ends of the lips - it’s definitely Merkel.

  10. Kilby Nov 2nd 2012 at 10:45 am 10

    P.S. Nuts, I had a “grin” in there, but the token filter in Wordpress removed it. Here’s a replacement smiley: ;-)

  11. Mark M Nov 2nd 2012 at 11:05 am 11

    Maybe it’s just me, but I didn’t see it as anything political at all. It is common to hear of employers asking workers to make sacrifices. That means something quite different to this primitive culture.

  12. Kilby Nov 2nd 2012 at 12:07 pm 12

    @ Mark M (11) - I would have agreed with you if we had been discussing this back on September 16th, but when posted four days before the election, everything takes on a political slant.

  13. James Pollock Nov 2nd 2012 at 01:20 pm 13

    There’s also the fact that GOP strategy required everyone to start talking about “job creators” whenever the discussion turned towards discussion of income tax and income tax rates. Thus, Obama’s plan to allow the Bush tax cut to expire on the wealthiest becomes Obama’s plan to increase taxes on “job creators”, as if people who are wealthy = people who create jobs. Statistically, this just isn’t correct, as most jobs are created in small businesses, and owners of small businesses usually aren’t in the top tax brackets.

  14. Elyrest Nov 2nd 2012 at 01:24 pm 14

    I am not a wealthy person, but my parents had standing in the community as my Dad was a doctor. My parents belonged to the local country club and when, in later years, I was back visiting I would often accompany my mother to play gin with her friends at the club. Most of these women were die-hard Republicans whose husbands were, or had been, the wheeler-dealers in town. The comments that I heard regarding the working class people were shocking to me. I had known many of these women for most of my life and they were good people, but they seemed to have no real understanding of what it meant to “work” for a living. As a bleeding-heart-liberal I kept my mouth shut because of my Mom, but I’m sure I drew blood from biting my tongue.

  15. Mark in Boston Nov 2nd 2012 at 05:59 pm 15

    TBS@6: So you’re saying the richer the rich people get, the more horseshit the poor people have to put up with?

  16. Mark M Nov 2nd 2012 at 07:03 pm 16

    James Pollock, people who are wealthy invest money (often how they became wealthy), and this in turn creates jobs. Surely you’re not that naive to think that those small business owners couldn’t get their small business going without investment support from the wealthy.

  17. jjmcgaffey Nov 2nd 2012 at 11:48 pm 17

    Surely you’re not that naive to think that those small business owners couldn’t get their small business going without investment support from the wealthy.

    This is actually accurate, for some businesses - though I don’t think you meant to write it this way. My home computer repair business is a going concern without any loans - well, aside from my parents, who are definitely not in the 1%.

    That aside - it’s almost true. If the wealthy actually invested their money in businesses, they would in fact create jobs (though reducing their tax rates probably wouldn’t noticeably increase the number of jobs created that way). However, far too many of them have a great deal of money stashed away in a bank (and yes, the bank may be using the money for small business loans - but that’s an extremely roundabout link), often overseas.

    Like far too many arguments from extremists in both directions, it starts with a reasonable notion (rich people can invest, thereby creating jobs) and gets stretched all out of sense (We must not take any money from the rich! They are the job creators!). Unfortunately the mainstream Republican party is now made up of extremists, which makes for some really annoying election jabber (the left has plenty of extremists too, but they’re not the main/only voice in the Democratic party. Loud, but not solo).

  18. Tim Nov 10th 2012 at 01:03 pm 18

    Wow - I got the opposite from this one. I thought it was about all the tax increases people are supposed to put up with for Obama’s supposed job creation bills (i.e., an anti-Democrat comic).

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply