I don't get it when most in the "News Media" let the candidates talk about the "Job-Creators", first of all, as if that is a class of people, and secondly, as if the businesses that make offers of employment to individuals are doing so, in every case, because of lighter individual tax burdens on certain people associated with that business. The News just doesn't question the term at all. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

If by this term it is meant that if an individual is freed of paying the taxes that all other citizens pay, based upon criteria that the amount they did NOT pay, went directly into creating at least one actual job, for a different person, then I would agree that this might be a "Job-Creator".

So if an individual can prove this, let's decide as a society that it is worth it to actually create some jobs that way.

But what we actually see is that the wealthiest amongst us are more than willing to take the reduction in taxes, but not create any new jobs. Why would a rational society give more money to the wealthiest, when it demonstrably did not create jobs?

Oh. The reason is that a portion of that reduction in taxes to the wealthy went to buy influence with Congress, to make sure they were treated "unequally". (Witness Mitt Romney paying less than 15% in taxes. How many jobs did he create with his "tax cuts"?)

One last note. What percentage of the cost of a newly created job, should be the incentive to create it? What I mean is that it shouldn't be 1:1.

The government shouldn't give a wealthy individual access to lower tax rates (based upon that they are "Job-Creators") at the rate of 1:1 pass-through. If an individual pays $40K less in taxes to create jobs, that individual should have to create more than one job that pays $40K a year, don't you think?. But what is that sweet-spot? 2:1? 100:1?

I don't mind rewarding true "Job-Creators", provided that the investment for society is actually rewarding society and not just the wealthy individual.

Your thoughts?