Do tax cuts help create Jobs?

95% of businesses fail within the first three years.......

.......post creation.......and again.....long before your DEMAND ever walked through the front door. The will and whim of the entreprenuer........

Please.....pile up all your rebuttles.....and you could almost see the ankles of the OP.

Unemployment Rate after The JFK Tax Cuts



Unemployment Rate after The Reagan Tax Cuts



Unemployment Rate after The Bush Tax Cuts


Thanks for playing......
.
..

 

The truth will set you free.......so much for their "stimulus" effect huh?
.
.
.
.

 

Of course not....even a 90% tax rate wouldnt have any effect.

Then you really need a refund for your public education.......from grade school on.

LOL......well at least Iremon provided something resembling an argument before getting spanked.

Look up....higher....you can almost see the OP.
.
.
.

 

I have but one simple question...when we have been cutting taxes for businesses for the last 40 years...while jobs have been flying out of the country...who are you 14 (*)(*)(*)(*)ing morons who clicked yes? Because, you are not just wrong, you are idiots.

 

"Flying out the country".......



You are a walking billboard for willfull ignorance........
.
.
.
.

 

And Bill Gates hasn't created any jobs...

 

Or extra disposable income for consumption.

Which increases the amount of loanable funds and drives down interest rates without causing inflation. Moreover, higher savings increases consumer confidence by providing an indemnity against unforeseen consequences like job loss and poor health.

Speculation.

And how would you know?

More speculation.

Self-serving speculation.

 

Because, according to your graph, every $1.00 spent on food stamps yields $1.73 in economic "benefits", which is a net gain of $0.73 per $1.00 spent.

Where is this data? You certainly haven't produced it.

 

Your analysis ignores opportunity costs and deadweight losses associated with taxation.

 

Sure he did, most of those jobs were actually created when the tax rate was higher than it is now. The point is his job creation record has nothing to do with taxes, it has been driven by demand for his products and services. He has never been in a situation when he badly needed to hire additional help but could not afford to do it due to high tax bill. He is not in such situation now either

 

I know the Obamanation would never agree to it, but did you just see the words, "Lets make everyone pay the same tax. This is what government is for," and miss the theoretical part?

I also said:

"Lets tax everyone with a flat net worth tax, and that be the only tax. You got $250,000,000 in net worth and if you pay .75% of that in taxes, the guy who has a $80,000 net worth pays the same percentage. Everyone is then happy?

Who gets the tax break there?"

The guy with the $80,000 net worth was paying 4.75% of his net worth in taxes back then in the late 80s. The numbers actually get worse with a Fair Tax and Flat Income tax.

What is always missing when I bring this up, is people figuring how much of their net worth they are currently paying in taxes, comparisons with people far richer, and honest debate about.

The point is not that people are "destorying [sic] my business because there is black skin in the Whitehouse," the point is that regardless of why if business is sitting on wealth because they have "a reason to leave the Divided Socialist States of ObamAmerica--The Most Business Unfriendly Country in the world," then there is a problem with taxes.

The question is, are taxes too high for another round of irrational exuberance and a paying down of the debt and deficit or are they too low?

Certainly most would agree that tax cuts can create jobs, but if taxes are lower than they were under irrational exuberance then something else is wrong.

It was true that punishing success was what the taxes we paid before Reagan were all about, but that tax system does not exist anymore. Safety nets are not rewarding failure unless it is the failure of business to create domestic jobs sufficient to create an equilibrium of supply (wealth) and demand (jobs).

This is all about Jobs, read it ALL:

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 28 Oct. 1785) http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s32.html

The Liberals skipped man-caused disasterer, insurgent, and went straight to "Terrorist" to describe the Tea Party recently. The only safety nets that could hurt profits are those that reword failure of the working healthy people and allow healthy workers to live high on the hog instead of working. But, if business is not hiring domestically, for whatever reason, then they are asking for a divide between the rich and the poor that is begging for a Reign of Terror, and a return of the Obamanator when the Marquis de St Evremonde passes his wealth untaxed down to Charles Darnay, and then taxes tea 23%.

 

Unemployment with Bush tax cuts:




Unemployment with Clinton tax increase:



When we look at all the facts, and not the cherry picked portion, only the partisan ideologue could deny the obvious conclusion.

Tax cuts increase deficits but don't do squat for employment.

Thanks for playing......

 

You clearly do not understand the point of stimulus.

Government cannot replace private sector. The point of a stimulus package is to temporarily boost the economy long enough for the private sector to take over. No one, liberal or conservative believes the public sector should be leading the charge on an economic growth.

 

The only opportunity costs we missed were the potential costs if we took the do nothing conservative stance on the economy when it was crashing. That would have been one heck of an opportunity cost.

We also miss a lot of opportunity costs when we allow massive amounts of capital to sit in bank accounts. Sure that money eventually finds it's way into loans and back into the economy. But it is a slow process. Especially after a financial collapse like this one when banks are now terrified to loan money to anyone with less than perfect credit.

 

And how could you possibly know that?

 

What does this have to do with taxation or the opportunity costs and deadweight losses associated with it? Oh, that's right...nothing.

 

Well there goes your entire argument. On the top of that list we have all the richest economies in the world. On the bottom we have some of the poorest economies in the world.

 

Savings are bad, mindless consumption is good!




Can you say "unsustainable"?

 

Why?

............

 

Stong growth, record profits, tons of cash, they are lean and mean, they are not struggling by any stretch of imagination...and yet they are not hiring. Who can possibly seriously claim that these guys need a tax cut?

 

What came first?

Propsperity or the Parasite of Statism?

To devote one's life to spending other people's money--Liberalism--you first have to have people with money.
.
.
.

 

And the rich are richer today and the income gap is bigger and the taxes they pay are lower than anytime in 6 decades or more.

What's your point?

 

Well considering we had a 90% tax rate when we first became a super power I'd say the taxes came first.