Do tax cuts help create Jobs?

This is a legitimate question not sarcasm, is there evidence that this trend is continuing since Obama extended Bush's tax cuts? Or is it still too soon to tell? I'm just curious

 

See charts in post #114 for a more complete picture.

 

An Income Gap of Zero.....is where everyone makes $0.00.....
.
.
.

 

Can you name any American in US History......that actually paid 90%?
.
.
.......wealth and prosperity always come before the infection of liberalism.
.
.
.

 

Extending tax cuts is not cutting taxes........

But to that point......do you think if government started seizing MORE MONEY from Employers, Producers, and Consumers.......would that somehow help job creation?

You dont have to be an economist or rocket scientist to figure out that Liberalism is the complete fraud and utter lie it has always been.
.
.
.
.

 

you still refuse to read/understand basic economics. tax rates play no part in creating jobs. increased demand for productivity does.

 

Governments don't just "seize" money, they spend what they "seize" (often they spend much more than that). Whether you like it or not when government spends money, jobs get created. Tons of well paying public and private jobs in fact.

 

Correction.....government spends money and temporary short term work or postponed unemployment is created.......all of which is 100% Dependent upon theft and future theft from The Private Market--Employers, Job Creators, Entreprenuers, Producers.

A baby (*)(*)(*)(*)ting in a diaper creates work.......but its not long term employment.....and thats what the American people are after.

The government is 100% parasite.....nothing is manufactured, no wealth created.......without the Host Organism it wouldnt exist.
.
.
.
.

 

Many independent studies show they tax cuts do "create" jobs by allowing business to grow.

 

care to cite these studies?

 

Funny, you left out the consumers.

Must be monsters in your id.

It explains why you ignore certain things that might show that the consumer is paying a higher percentage of their net worth in taxes than the self sustaining landed estate.

The host organism is We the People, it is not a French Aristocracy of "Employers, Job Creators, Entreprenuers, Producers."

If sales taxes are too high people might not buy the product.

If consumers are paying a higher percentage of their net worth in taxes than the principle means of production, the product might not sell as well, the trickle down from the workers income of an unsold product does not produce the increased cash flow producing increased jobs and revenue, and we get a deficit:

http://www.politicalforum.com/opinion-polls/200296-do-tax-cuts-help-create-jobs-12.html#post4275807

 

Not every consumer is a net taxpayer......as a vast majority of the DNC base ends up sucking out more, via the Democrat provided social teet, than what they put in.

The Host Organism is We The People who work in the Private Market......where wealth is created.

We The People who work in the public sector are 100% (D)ependent upon theft from the private sector.
.
.
.

 

Heritage, Cato, and the rest of the tax cuts for the rich propaganda machine.

 

Not necessarily. But what is your point?

 

Exactly what I assumed...Those aren't studies...they're cherry picking festivals.

 

Didn't Obama just spend TRILLIONS on a 'stimulus' package? Where are all the jobs?

 

Excellent question and you are absolutely right, Obama wasted a ton of money with nothing to show for it. Here is a link to Obama Stimulus Package Breakdown

First of all a very large part of the stimulus package was tax relief. Guess what, tax relief did not work (which is the primary topic of this debate). Unfortunately the rest did not work either as a very small fraction of the package was geared towards job creation.

I never claimed that any arbitrary government spending would create jobs. In order to create jobs the government spendings must be carefully planned to target areas of maximum job creation (like infrastructure, science, new technologies). Checks and balances should be adopted to make sure that the work is performed in the country, there is no point to hire a contractor who would perform work at their factory in China or India, that does nothing for job creation. Needless to say none of that happened and this administration failed miserably. Spending all that money to rebuild roads and bridges would have created a million new jobs (and improved the infrastructure dramatically) and that's just one of possible ways to spend the money.

PS let's not forget that Bush tax cuts are still in effect, supplemented by the stimulus tax relief. Clearly they are doing nothing for job creation either.

 

If the vast majority of the DNC base is sucking out more, via the Democrat provided social teet [sic], then it is not all that unreasonable to assume that the private sector has failed. The reasons for failure can be related to whether or not the taxes are creating a France (aristocracy) before the real Tea Party, and whether or not more of the new Tea Party tax schemes will make it worse.

"But the chief object of this progressive tax (besides the justice of rendering taxes more equal than they are) is, as already stated, to exterpate the overgrown influence arising from the unnatural law of primogeniture, and which is one of the principle sources of corruption at elections." (Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, Everyman's Library, Alfred A. Knopf, 1994, p, 221)

The Tea Party calls for an end to the "Death Tax" can only increase the problems both Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine saw. And if the wealthy are sitting on wealth for higher unemployment, because they want the more favorable tax scemes of the Tea Party that is in keeping with "the principle sources of corruption at elections" that Thomas Paine was talking about, especially when combined with the notion in Washington's farewell address on party factions:

"All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion." http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

I do not think we are in dispute with regard to whether the Private Market is where wealth is created. "I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable."

Government providing "for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" through social safety nets, infrastructure, post roads or interstate highways, electrification...is not government ownership and control of the principle means of production, nor is it "A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY."

"We The People who work in the public sector are 100% (D)ependent upon theft from the private sector," is the WPA (see Reagan's father) and CETA like programs: where my father logged in Oregon for the WPA before he was punched in the stomach at 16 and made a sergeant before WWII at Camp Lee Virginia, and where they raked leaves in the forest and the sand out of my street under Jimmy Cotter Pin and Joseph Califano wanted to tag people at the beach to prevent skin cancer, respectively.

I do not want the WPA or CETA anymore than you do.

What is in dispute is whether or not consumers, not working for the WPA or CETA, are paying a higher percentage of their net worth in taxes than the principle means of production, the product might not sell as well, the trickle down from the workers income of an unsold product does not produce the increased cash flow producing increased jobs and revenue, and we get a deficit:

http://www.politicalforum.com/opinion-polls/200296-do-tax-cuts-help-create-jobs-12.html#post4275807

Deal with it, do the math, prove that the wealthy are not getting more of a tax break based upon their net worth (what they want the government to protect) than the working consumer in the private market.

If the consumer, not working for the WPA or CETA, has less of their net worth to spend--because business can sit on wealth for more favorable politics through high unemployment, or can sit on wealth made mostly from foreign manufacture and predatory lending to consumers for high unemployment--then lowering taxes on the wealthy does not translate to a healthy consumer base.

The social teet [sic] is subsistence, worse is "let them eat cake," and ignoring the fact that wealth can be sat upon and unemployment is higher due to increased foreign manufacture, the end result is no different than if the Artificially Intelligent Robotic Principle Means of Production existed now and was owned by Marquis de St Evremonde.

I repeat since you avoided it twice:

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 only safety nets that could hurt profits are those that reward 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%.

 

If the entire amount had been dumped into building clean energy, Obama's Manhattan project on energy, it might have had the same effect in the long run as rural electrification.

"There's a reason that some have compared the quest for energy independence to the Manhattan Project or the Apollo moon landing. Like those historic efforts, moving away from an oil economy is a major challenge that will require a sustained national commitment." (Barack Obama on energy independence, That man’s got a pair, you gotta give him that)
http://www.grist.org/article/barack-obama-on-energy-independence

Looks like he doesn't after all, from your link:

"$ 54 billion to encourage energy production from renewable sources" http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/20639/

If I remember correctly one of the biggest solar projects in New York was foreign made solar panels.

Stimulus should fit the desires, like a Hoover Dam or a TVA.

 

Most of the initial so-called 'stimulus' went to large corporate banking interests in order to bolster bad securities so that big banks would not fail. An argument could be made that we should have just let them fail.

You wrote:

I see no caveat there for any targeted spending.

That horse already left the barn. Besides you catch more flies with honey than a fly swatter. We need to make the US more desirable in which to start and run a business. Right now, draconian taxation, over-reaching regulatory government, and unreal environmental expectations have forced most of these corporations off-shore. I own and run a business and if I could, I would go off-shore because my US government punishes me every time I make a bit more $$$.

Seems to me Obama promised 'shovel ready' projects. Unfortunately, before the first shovel-load such things as environmental-impact and traffic studies must be performed along with paying huge sums of money to the local government development department, scads of Federal regulations and on and on and on. Obama is ignorant of all that. He is a community organizer who has never even held down a job.

Probably the only thing keeping US from falling off the economic cliff into a depression.

 

And that's exactly why I said the money was wasted instead of being spent intelligently in the areas of the maximum potential job creation.

It was cheaper and easier to run a plantation when slavery was legal. It's cheaper and easier to run a business now in countries where child labor, pollution, exploitation, extreme poverty, indentured servitude etc is the norm of the day. Is that the kind of country you want your country to become though to compete for your business? Somehow I don't think you want to live is such a country.

I bet you don't really want to move to a hellhole like that, what you want is to manufacture your products there on the cheap and live and sell your products in the West, to the Western middle class, enjoying the fruits of the Western civilization and expecting someone else to pay the bill. You'd expect someone else to hire the Western middle class and pay them the wages that would allow them to pay "fair price" for your products and services. Too bad it does not work like that, when you all (employers) move their businesses to China you'll have no middle class left to buy whatever it is you collectively produce and this is exactly where the West is now heading.

I don't remember disputing that. Anyway we digressed. Do you seriously disagree that If Obama used all the money to build roads two more millions of americans would be employed today? Do you seriously disagree that big businesses and super rich individuals have record amounts of cash on the sidelines today, yet they are not hiring?

 

You have it 'bassackwards'...It is almost impossible to run a large corporation competitively here in the US with all the draconian Socialist business-killing regulations and high taxation. Most of our factories manufacturing basic electronic components (circuit boards, etc.) went overseas from Silicon Valley back in the late 80's - 90's mostly due to un-achievable environmental regulations and sky-high costs to employ and maintain an American workforce.

The Chinese workers average wage has been rising quite dramatically as US corporations flee the bad business environment here in America. The average textile worker (2007) made about 20,000 yaun. ($2,800) which may seem quite low but provides a decent standard of living for them. This is not 'slave labor' by any means.

Not necessarily. They need educated, experienced folks over there. You could snag a job as a consultant etc., get paid American wages and live like a king. The advantage to over-seas production is that goods coming here are dirt-cheap because of the insanely low over-head which is mainly due to cheap (compared to America) labor and relaxed restrictions.

I think there is a balance that can be attained with more sanity regarding businesses and large corporations here in the US.

I think Obama has no idea what it takes to even start a large project. Most of these projects get mired in government red-tape for years, even decades before even the first shovel is plunged into the ground.

I think big business and the so-called 'rich' are scared to death of Obama and will hold onto their cash until we vote in a President that isn't more inept than the Peanut Farmer was.

 

Even Democrat JFK understood how tax cuts boost the economy and reduce unemployment.

 

When the top tax rate is 94% and you're going to reduce it to 70% and you are not facing a huge deficit and debt problem, I'd agree with him.

Changing the to tax rate to 70% like Kennedy did would go a *long* way to solving our budget problem.

 

So, tax cuts do help create jobs?