Why is it that our cultural elites demagogue rich folks as mercenary...and, yet refuse to acknowledge the logical consequences of such a disposition? They're making 'record profits' the anointed shout from their list of talking points, indoctrinating we the slow-witted people.
That may be true. The question is, Why would big companies miss the opportunity (mercenaries that they are) to increase their profit margins - by remaining in a country with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world? Similarly, if the rich are cold-hearted - disposed to protect their jet-flying and luxurious lifestyle at the expense of the noble poor (whether they pay their fair share of federal income taxes or not); why would these Scrooges remain in a country that promises to appropriate even more of their precious loot?
Well, it is this failure in reasoning that becomes apparent in much of the linguistic spinning we the benighted public often hear, are confused by, and nonetheless begin to parrot, numbly.
Well, these are what they call spending that 'must be paid for' and which add to the deficit. Breaking that declaration down, you end up with an incomprehensible and boldly inaccurate interpretation of reality. George Washington recognized that yes, taxes are necessary, that they would be an "inconvenient and unpleasant" means of raising revenue. But this government, which has grown heavy and full on its citizens, has begun to lean upon the people who feed it like a set of bureaucratic loan sharks. Increasing and increasing their spending exponentially, this government giant has grown the power of its constituent parts as well as the deficit. And instead of meeting its obligations, it has shifted specifically allocated funds to cover pet projects and other grandiose endeavors.
In theory, Social Security benefits are self-financing with a 12.4 percent payroll tax, but that doesn’t mean the money collected will pay for benefits. This is because when Congress changed the law in 1983 so that in any given year, current taxpayers pay more in taxes than the program needs to pay out benefits, Congress also required that the program invest the difference, or surplus, into a trust fund, which can only invest money in special-issue Treasury bonds.
So what has the Treasury done with the money? Well, the federal government has spent it on its daily consumption: education, loan guarantees, wars, etc. In other words, the government has already spent the money it received in exchange for the IOUs.
See, The Facts About Social Security: Separating economic myths from economic truths. It's come to the point where our elected representatives behave as if they are royalty, and we are beholden peons. And we forget that we are the government, too often. Instead of recognizing the constraints of a budget the way we ordinary folks must; this government giant has decided to use our income as a crutch. Our congress hasn't passed one in a couple of years, but a budget is a plan of operations based on such an estimate of expected income and expense for a given period in the future, which is often itemized.
If our government doesn't ease up on the spending, it will break the spindly and inappropriate support for which our toil provides.
Likewise, the failure to increase spending is a 'cut'. That's like saying, 'If you don't give me a raise or, a bonus this year; that's the same as cutting my salary.'
It would be equally perplexing to hear from, say, my landlord, 'I've decided to decrease your rent by five percent' and have him explain it thus, 'I had planned to increase your rent in the next month by that amount, but now I won't.'
Well, that means you. 'Subsidies for big oil companies', you hear. 'Tax cuts for the rich,' are often raised. Have you ever heard the following?
A tax loophole is nothing more than a government incentive to promote some type of public policy. It’s a carrot the government is holding out to you, to entice you to do something the government wants you to do. An IRA or 401(k) plan is a tax loophole.
 A tax deduction is something you take off your income before arriving at your net taxable income (the figure you’ll calculate any tax on).... One great example of a tax deduction is health insurance.
 A tax credit is different from a tax deduction. A tax credit is applied against the tax you’ve just calculated from your net taxable income.
See, Tax Loophole … Tax Credit, or Tax Deduction? Do You Know the Difference? You might have been left with the sense that qualifying for one of these - a loophole - is sign of bad character, something for which you ought to be ashamed (like wealth or profitability). There is another compelling perspective, however.
Tax credits, like tax exemptions, deductions, shelters, and loopholes, allow people to keep more of their money in their pocket and out of the hands of the government. It doesn’t matter what the tax credit is for; the result is the same. Only a statist who thinks that the government has an absolute right to a percentage of all income produced and that tax credits deprive the government of its claim to that percentage could object to individuals or businesses holding on to their own money. Statists on the left and the right both reason that since not every person in society benefits in the same way from all tax credits and deductions that no one should benefit from any of them.
See, Tax Credits Are Not Subsidies. But the loopholes that the royal Republican and Democrat traders are indifferently talking about using to grow even more power while forwarding their agenda affect the little guy (especially, if he has a family). First time buyer tax credits and cash for clunkers aren't that popular - with good reason, perhaps (because of swiftly peaking and declining economic advantages). But, other so-called loopholes include the Child Tax Credits and the Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction. Therefore, if you file taxes as a parent and/or a homeowner, the government giant aims to gain by taking the benefit of loopholes away from you.
Maybe it's perversity that causes ideologues to so subtly and deceptively explain complex phenomena. Or, it could be that the cultural elites assume "that complex social phenomena cannot have simple causes." (Thomas Sowell, *The Vision of the Anointed*, New York: Basic Books, 1995, p. 85). That is to say, maybe companies hold onto their 'record profits' instead of hiring, because they are uncertain about whether and what kind of new taxes will be imposed upon them, because they want to increase profits - by failing to invest in hiring (or, by investing in machinery that replaces workers and saves capital).
Companies are in business to make a profit. They are not in business to 'create jobs' or to employ more people; job creation is incidental to a company's profit. As the company grows its profit and expansion becomes a decided means of increased profitabiliy; systemic causation leads companies to acquire more manpower.
"Determining the particular characteristics of particular kinds of systems of reciprocal interaction can be a demanding task - but it is a task seldom undertaken by those with the vision of the anointed, who see little standing between intention and result, other than such subjective factors as compassion or commitment." (Ibid., 126.)
In his eloquent Congressional colloquy shared with U.S. Senator, Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) makes a good point with his question. What corporation, also known as a 'job creator' (incidental to creating the greatest profit it can), finds an incentive to expand in the specter of increasing taxes?