Do tax cuts help create Jobs?

If you produce a product and no one buys it you do not produce it for long.

Tax cuts are used by big business to hedge against econnomic downturns and to buy new equipment. New equipment can then be written off as it depreciates.

Tax cuts can also be used to make it easier to move companies overseas...well at least more affordable.

 

And that is the NATURE OF BUSINESS........

............95% of businesses fail within the first three years. 80% of Jobs are created by small businesses. Its this continuing process......the will and whim of the entreprenuer that creates Jobs.

Demand only determines Longevity of a business......but thats well after the initial job creation took place.

Well if the car makers and their consumers have additional money in their pocket (Hello Tax Cuts)..........Im betting the chances for buying more cars improves greatly.
.
.
.
.

 

So your point is we need more failed businesses that are making products no one will buy?

And there in lies the problem.

Tax cuts mostly benefit the rich who already have money they are sitting on. Plus they make deficits worse. Can't go down that road any more.

Slash spending and put another million or two people on the unemployment rolls and what happens to demand for cars?

 

99.9% of Businesses ultimately FAIL.......it may take one year.....it may take 50......maybe a 100.......

Its this process....the will and whim of the Entreprenuer that determines job creation. And the Democrat Party has been killing will and whim for the last 50 years.....

Tax cuts benefit everyone they are given too and the people around them.........

........including Employers, Job Creators, Entreprenuers, Producers, Workers, and Consumers.
.
.
.
.

 

I got into this argument with a person at work. If you have mega-bucks you may buy a little more but most of the money is used to make more money...not to start a business or hire people...just to make more money without producing anything.

You make big bucks buy cutting employess...not spending more money hiring more people. Most people have never heard of slash and burn.

If you want a stock to go up a good strategy is to announce that you are cutting labor...not hiring more people.

 

......have you ever been hired by a Poor Person?

What world do you live in where layoffs are cheered by anyone involved in the business?
.
.
.
.

 

Right, and we need some of that.

Depends. While greater productivity enhances profits, if there is demand for your product or services, you make more money by hiring more employees to produce more goods and services.

 

Because Badmutha and the Tea Party thinks tax cuts in a vacuum benefit everyone they are given too and the people around them regardless of simple economic principles of Supply (housing bubble) and Demand (ARM for CNN's truck driver Bernita to buy a doctor's house and babysit it for 2 years in the majority black community reinvestment hood that used to be woods I used to howl at the moon in).

"Obama said Friday afternoon, adding 'the days when we are going to be able to grow this economy just on an overheated housing market or people spending - maxing out on their credit cards, those days are over.'" http://www.truthout.org/031609A

In the short bus view tax cuts help create jobs, but in the long bus view tax cuts do not have to help create jobs.

If a redneck's taxes go down--at "BBB and Sons Roofing" out of Texas with two offices in other states not including Georgia where they were roofing with only two employees to avoid workman's compensation taxes--unintelligent design will build too many too big houses when there is no demand for them. The banks will use ARM's again so other community reinvestment can buy the houses, which is what someone on the Foxy Blonde Legs Channel (FBN's America's Nightly Scoreboard) suggested doing last night because Ben Shalom Bernanke promised low interest rates long enough for another round of ARM babysitters to improve the housing economy, which is like our only economy. Without some other industry that might be created by raising tariffs for Benjamin Franklin homespun industry, you get MARTA (Moving Africans Rapidly Through Atlanta) buying French articulated buses; all the while the rednecks scream about their taxes funding Grady. When the market collapses and every job gained by lower taxes is lost plus some, lower taxes net loss in jobs, due to housing being the only manufacture a redneck can do, Ron Pods will scream that it is because of entitlements or too high taxes.

 

"Tax Cuts Do Not Have to help Creat Jobs".........

.......but they do.....everytime they are tried.

A Pay Raise to every Employer, Job Creator, Producer, and Worker.......

.....to argue against its obvious economic benefit......is to argue for willfull ignorance.
.
.
.
.
.

 

If tax cuts for the billionaires and millionaires creates jobs. I would like to know what happened in the eight years that Bush was in and the three percent of the richest people in this country that didn't pay hardly any taxes, where did they create the jobs that the Republicans are talking about. They sure didn't create the jobs in this country. But let me let you in on a little secret. The billionaires are using the system of getting tax breaks and incentives from this country, but are investing all this money in places like China. YES! they are getting richer, and we keep losing jobs to overseas countries. The Republicans will not stop this because the rich corporate CEO's are funding our politicians under the table to keep them in office.
So the loop holes have to be stopped on big corporations. And if they want tax breaks, they have to invest this tax breaks on creating jobs in this country.

 

Hello?

Unemployment Rate After The Bush Tax Cuts

The Democrat Party has been driving out US Businesses w/Jobs for the better part of the last century.......no US Employer leaves these shores willingly.

.....If you owned a business in a country where you were unable to turn a profit......would you stay?
.
.
.
.

 

Actual unemployment with Bush tax cuts, excepting the first part of 2001:

 

I am all for tax breaks for the rich...the rich that hire more people in the U.S and expand business in the U.S.

Supply the jobs...and then get the tax cut.

No new jobs here...no tax cuts.

 

Taxes are not the only thing going on in the economy, it is not a simple equation of "lower taxes=more jobs"; you can pump up the wattage all you want but if there is a weak link it is going pop and you lose all your power.

What we are dealing with here are people on both sides who do this; one sided tyrannical thinking:

You are not lowering taxes in a vacuum; the Fabian Socialists, Third Way Socialists, and Neocommies are not going away.

The short view with two dimensions has only two variables, "lower taxes=more jobs," but the long view with all the other variables (wars, Ron Paul's "free trade" with foreign slave labor...) throws a wrench in the works.

Obama pumped up the wattage on the Socialist agenda with Obamacare, just like when Jimmy Cotter Pin said, "Is a practical and comprehensive national health program beyond the capacity of our American government? I think not." (p176-177, Why No the Best?," Bantam Books") Kennedy said, "now is not the time for socialized medicine." So you know what happened, the same thing can happen in reverse.

You cannot lower taxes and regulations (see EPA comments in last night's debate) and not pollute. The end result of too much polution and decreased burden on employers can be disabled workers and increased jobs cleaning up the mess, but that also means at some point increased taxes and more of a burden on your society when the Greater Society or Newer Deal comes to power.

Everytime they are tried tax cuts and deregulation may increase jobs in the short term, but history shows that many times they are tried the long view with all the other variables has increased deficits more debt and it becomes a burden that kills our jobs.

Before:

"For the first time in a generation, we are not haunted by a major international crisis or by domestic turmoil, and we now have a rare and a priceless opportunity to address persistent problems and burdens which come to us as a nation, quietly and steadily getting worse over the years." http://odur.let.rug.nl/usa/P/jc39/speeches/su78jec.htm

After:

"This last few months has not been an easy time for any of us. As we meet tonight, it has never been more clear that the state of our Union depends on the state of the world. And tonight, as throughout our own generation, freedom and peace in the world depend on the state of our Union." http://odur.let.rug.nl/usa/P/jc39/speeches/su80jec.htm

We cannot expect that another crisis will not hit while we are expecting trickle down theory to work, any more than the bad leader Obama could expect to get his "rare and a priceless opportunity" in the vacuum of thinking conservatives disappeared and a train wreck economy was the time for increasing their socialist utopia.

If we are to believe Ron Paul, if we mind our own business bad people will not happen. It is naive beyond measure.

Certainly the bad leader Obama gave you lower taxes on a silver platter by keeping the Bush tax cuts, that may be his undoing, but the Obama/Bush tax cuts in the history books do not support those taxes as working in light of the other variables of debt (foreign and domestic) and deficit.

Raising taxes on all of our consumption with a national sales tax would kill our jobs more than theirs, raising taxes (tariffs) on consumption of foreign manufacture may be the way to go. Still, consider the facts; I was not harmed at all when Black Monday hit, and a Rosie the Riveter (Bell Bomber Plant) who did not listen to me had to retire to keep that 401k (there was a delay) because of talk a few months before of protectionist legislation against Japan, where it started. Revenue is simply going to have to increase in this real world of more than two dimensions, which has no pure mandate for Change to Libertarian.

I think doing away with the Bush tax cuts and maybe increasing Tariffs (like the taxes this country survived on up until the Civil War Income Tax) are our best bet. If there is any increased spending it must all go into infrastructure (Greener energy independence, and improved electrical grid...), if there are any cuts it must be what Bush/Obama did extra after the Clinton surplus. Green may not be nuclear but it would be better than nothing, and just throwing new really Green technology out is "flat earth" two dimensional talk.

Going back to the Clinton/Newt taxes with maybe some more of those taxes that the founders preferred up to 1862, tariffs, should not be the end of our world. At first things would be tough, but as more domestic manufacture was created it would pay off in the long run. I am all for trying new things that make sense, like free trade, but it did not work, and the founders believed in trading with everyone without favors, not free trade without tariffs and unstable trade removing the support of our merchants:

"Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them)...There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard." (Washington's Farewell Address 1796) http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

This country must pay off the debt and balance the budget, and it is not happening by thinking the Socialists and Neocommies are just going away if we mind our own business with spending cuts and deregulation. At best you can only hope to hold the line on Fabian Socialism, until everything is balanced, at worse you make things worse with too many spending cuts in entitlements and safety nets and too much deregulation and give rise to the congregation working toward ECONOMIC PARITY.

 

Not necessarily. Tens of millions of workers who pay FICA taxes but not income taxes got absolutely no raise in pay from the numerous different Bush tax cuts. Tens of millions more only saved a relatively small amount.

Bush cut estate taxes, investment taxes, capital gains taxes, housing taxes, every kind of tax that enrich the rich.

For the FICA taxes the working poor pay, he cut not one dime.

For those who had any doubt as to the intent of the Republicans in their tax cuts.

 

I voted no. While it is true that tax cuts can create jobs under very specific circumstances, in most cases, they don't.

 

Cutting FICA taxes is impossible without cuts in benefits, and that defeats the purpose. And those bright bulbs who say people should be able to pass on their benefits to whoever they choose, are retards (or lying scum), do not know how to look the word "insurance" up in the dictionary or would be capable of understanding how insurance works; enough people must die without collecting for insurance to work.

 

That is not true at all.

For decades, the FICA taxes -- the taxes the working poorer pay, were scores or hundreds of billions more than were necessary to pay the benefits. Those surplus taxes were used to partially finance income and estate and investment and other tax cuts.

The Republicans could have just as easily cut these surplus FICA taxes the working poorer pay, instead of cutting the taxes that mostly benefit the wealthier.

But that is not what they are about.

 

http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/comp2/F083-591.html

Please, feel free to explain it to me, I am not the accountant here.

http://blog.accountingcoach.com/social-security-tax-2011/

Wouldn't the 10% that would be 15% be figured into that, or I should say offset it a little?

"Social Security tax break: $111.7 billion. The package would also offer workers a payroll tax holiday worth 2 percentage points next year, so that instead of paying 6.2% on their first $106,800 of wages, they will only have to pay 4.2%. The measure would cost $112 billion." http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/tax_cut_deal_obama/index.htm

Aren't those the Obama tax cuts now?

I get your point about less progression, but if you cut one you have to raise the other to be revenue neutral, or it is a cut that cuts benefits. I don't know all the math, you are the accountant.