Do tax cuts help create Jobs?

I agree that tax cuts used to create jobs in this country, BUT! things have changed in this country. We are in a global economy now with very little protectionism in this country. All of our large companies have gone over to where cheap labor is found, like all of Asia.

It does not take a genius to figure where have all the good paying jobs gone. I just can't figure why our politicians can't see that. China does not have to fire a shot to take control of the U.S. We owe them so much money right now that if they wanted to cause problems for us, they could do it.

The trade is one sided and if you try to talk to them people, they just shine you away. How many times have you seen them cooperate with the U.S. on any vital interest to the U.S., such as sanctions against any of our enemies. They will not and neither will Russia. Yet the greed of corporate America is investing heavy in those communist countries. They are laughing all the way to the banks and building mighty armies. You would think that our politicians would figure out that world wide trade does not work when you let your manufacturing go over seas. The jobs go with them and yet they are getting millions of dollars in incentives to invest in other countries and major tax breaks. All kinds of loop holes.
All of our politicians better wake up, before it is too late and we will be a third world country.

 

Again.....I created the business.....I created the jobs, hired the workers and staff.....I created the product or service......before your DEMAND ever walked through the front door.

Now go in and buy something my ignorant friend........
.
.
.
.

 

Fundamentally, tax breaks do help create jobs, but only if investors do the right thing. This time, however, smart investors are investing outside of the US, such as in China and India. I can't blame people for putting their money to work where it will generate the most profits. But in order to promote job growth here, they must invest it in the US. The problem I have is when they make promises they can't keep. Instead, they should just admit that this country is too far gone to fix, but they're not going to say anything that dumb, unless they're betting against the US stock market.

More tax breaks means more money invested outside of the US. If the rich claim that they can promote growth with tax breaks, then it's in their power to make it happen. I think a flat tax would be the best motivator for people, as people won't be able to point the finger anymore.

 

The abundance of willfull ignorance on this forum is truely astounding........
.
.
.
.

 

case in point.

 

You show us that with your every post.

 

Very good post Clint.

 

Kennedy lower taxes from their historically high rates. The principle is the same.

Did you listen to his speech or have you decided his advice isn't worth your time?

 

Well since Im the one who started the business.......obviously that makes you an expert on its origin.

DEMAND didnt take place until you walked through the front door to BUY.....the porducts or services I had waiting for you.
.

If you were schooling anyone.......the poll would be in your favor.......and the mental midgets would be winning.

Facts and blatant truth are tough for anyone to deny.......but liberals still manage.

Unemployment Rate after The JFK Tax Cuts



Unemployment Rate after The Reagan Tax Cuts



Unemployment Rate after The Bush Tax Cuts



.........COINCIDENCE........
.
.
.

 

First to market companies can definitely be started without demonstrated demand for production; they can be started without even the benefit of market studies. Anyone who invents something new - and then markets it without verifying demand - is creating a business without established demand for their product.

Only hope.

Perhaps you're confusing demand with need or want? Unless one is entering a fairly saturated and tested field, demand can only be implied.
.

This is simply not the case. Companies create a product that they guess will have demand all the time; and all the time companies fail due to incorrect guesses.

There's no point in shoving around insults, are there?

From my POV, it appears as though you are denying basic motivations of entreprenuers at minimum, and fundamental economic tenets at worst.

Causation=/=Correlation. Taxes, btw, are not the "lowest they've been in 60 years; only a cursory look at statistics could support your claim. Top marginal rates were much higher in the past. The question, however, is: how many Americans did the effect? What shelters existed (buying investments/collectibles to lower AGI, as an example)? What deductions? What effect does AMT have on your equation? What income levels were impacted by top rates in the years you'd claim are the baseline comparison?

Our top rate now effects a much larger percentage of Americans. AMT captures many more.

Corporate rates, likewise, are high, and - with our highest in the world labor overhead - should be lower than elsewhere to ensure competiveness.

Particularly with our level of onerous regulations.

I don't think you're being fair or even-handed in your claims. I also have not seen you even acknowledge the damage that obscene levels of spending at the Federal Level have wrought on the economy, nor the housing bubble due to CRAs.

Your claim is so one-sided, in fact, as to be transparent.

 

There is no demand for new ideas until new ideas are created? The closest to the "they" gets it.

People were screaming to increase the disparity between the rich and the poor before the tax cuts increased the disparity?

People want less dis-ease so they invent a Tea Party, if the rich paid less taxes they would not be creating Tea Party jobs. So taxing the rich is in the best interest of Tea Party Jobs.

The Bush Tax cuts were in response to the irrational exuberance dot com bust, so just because employment increases after a tax decrease does not mean it was not a natural correction that would have happened anyway. All the Bush tax cuts did was create deficits and debt because not enough revenue came from decreasing the gap between the rich and poorer jobs.

"'Irrational exuberance' is a phrase used by the then-Federal Reserve Board Chairman, Alan Greenspan, in a speech given at the American Enterprise Institute during the Dot-com bubble of the 1990s." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_exuberance



I suppose that things moving closer to together and then moving further apart is not noticed?



"In 1992, when Bill Clinton was elected President, the American economy was barely creating jobs, wages were stagnant, and the unemployment rate was 7.5 percent...The Unemployment Rate Was 4.2 Percent in 1999 -- the Lowest Since 1969." http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000112_1.html

Just because unemployment can be lower with higher taxes does not mean it is irrational.

Logic says that invention (change) is created by dis-ease (more taxing things), and also jobs are not created by ease (less taxing things).

 

Go back to your public high school and demand a refund..........

.
.
.

 

why? I'm continuing to school you on basic economics.

and I didn't go to public school.

 

Ford didn't build the first car. But there could be demand for a service or product that is not invented. There would be demand for a reasonably priced Star Trek transporter. You just need to build one. There is demand for better, more efficient, less expensive.

But without demand for a product or service, businesses aren't going to produce it. How many businesses do you see producing 8 track machines these days? Why not? No one wants them anymore. No demand.

And on a macroeconomic scale, if there is less demand because spending is down because folks are worried about their jobs or paying down debt, businesses aren't going to produce.

 

A major problem is the fact that business has become more productive with less people. They make loads of money with less employees. This is great for the corporate bottom line but very difficult for the american family.

They do not spend money on new people but spend it on new machines. Machines do not demand more money, take sick days, go on strike, etc..etc..etc.

 

New Ideas, products, goods, and services are created....period

......via the will and whim of the Entreprenuer.....regardless of DEMAND.

Those Pelosi Economic Courses arent paying off for you......
.
.
.
.
.

 

Sure. And 99% go nowhere because there is no demand for the product created.

But car makers aren't going to make more cars if there is no demand for cars.

 

Well it is a BUSINESS....not a CHARITY.

Should it be the goal of a business to be LESS PRODUCTIVE?

Should it be the goal of a business to hire 5 Liberal slobs to do 1 Job?

Efficiency is not a problem..........

Lets go back to the days of the caveman (liberalis democratis)........where the technology boogyman wasnt so scary.
.
.
.
.