Tax Cuts Create Jobs? Prove It

Amy B. Dean: Tax Cuts Create Jobs? Prove It

Since the Clinton era, it has been popular even among Democrats to argue that investment in capital and spurring the economy through low tax rates would lead to job creation. But the evidence amassed since then does not support this idea. As Jack Rasmus recently noted, the period between 2001 and 2004, when George W. Bush pushed through a series of tax cuts for investors and corporations in the name of creating jobs, actually saw some of the weakest job creation rates on record following a recession.
Since stimulus was implemented the unemployment rate increased to 9.8%.

Government spending creates jobs? Prove it!

since the OP wasnt trying to say the stimulus creates jobs either you have no standing here. (and there have been reports that stimulus did both save and create jobs)
CBO finds 3.7M jobs created by stimulus - The Hill's On The Money
Recovery.gov - Tracking the Money

now im waiting for you to tell me how liberal the mainstream media is and how these numbers are all lies.

Unsubstantiated claims... not 'reports'

but nice try... there is no proof that the stimulus stimulated anything but government spending, control, and earner burden
 
It is true that job growth was weak during the last expansion. It is also true that the tax cuts weren't the best tax cuts to create jobs, at least in the near-term. It is also true that tax cuts aren't always the best or even a significant way of creating jobs.

But it is a mistake to look solely at the outcome between the Bush tax cuts and job growth as strictly causal. The proper way is to look at the Bush tax cuts and what job growth would have been had there been no tax cuts. And almost certainly, without the stimulus from the Bush tax cuts, job growth would have been slower still.
 
Last edited:
Since stimulus was implemented the unemployment rate increased to 9.8%.

Government spending creates jobs? Prove it!

since the OP wasnt trying to say the stimulus creates jobs either you have no standing here. (and there have been reports that stimulus did both save and create jobs)
CBO finds 3.7M jobs created by stimulus - The Hill's On The Money
Recovery.gov - Tracking the Money

now im waiting for you to tell me how liberal the mainstream media is and how these numbers are all lies.

Unsubstantiated claims... not 'reports'

but nice try... there is no proof that the stimulus stimulated anything but government spending, control, and earner burden
Per Recovery.gov, the stimulus is credited with 675,841 jobs...or $1,164,475.08 per job.

It's be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
 
Tax cuts do slightly stimulate the economy. But only very slightly and only for a short time.
 
Tax cuts do slightly stimulate the economy. But only very slightly and only for a short time.
True most of the time. It depends on capital structure in a period of deleveraging like now definitely true. Any tax cuts or stimulus will be used to reduce debt for the next 4-5 years. On the otherhand a sure way to tank the economy would be the tax changes proposed by the deficit reduction commission. The question is whether ripping off the bandaid all at once or slowly is better?
 
The reinvestment of capital is crucial to creating jobs. You don't honestly think the wealthy just sit on their b/millions and laugh to themselves, do you?

Unless there is some formula showing that the government confiscating more capital somehow enables an employer to have MORE resources and means to compensate their employees (new ones too!) for their time, skill, and labor...

Anyone with a slight business or economic clue can tell you that a tax break doesn't result in overnight growth or job creation.

The top marginal rates for the Bush Tax Cuts of 2001-2003 didn't take full effect until 2003 anyway, so we were still dealing with much higher top marginal rates until 2003. So I daresay that Huffposts article is just blowing hot air around without having much of an economic clue. The author seems to just want to demonize business, which isn't exactly surprising considering her venue. The whole article seemed to imply that businesses are working with government funds, and that all that capital actually belongs to the government, rather than the employers & employees.

We have the most inefficient, convoluted and distorted tax code as it is, but to say that lower taxes DON'T help encourage growth and job creation is just crazy.
 
Amy B. Dean: Tax Cuts Create Jobs? Prove It

Since the Clinton era, it has been popular even among Democrats to argue that investment in capital and spurring the economy through low tax rates would lead to job creation. But the evidence amassed since then does not support this idea. As Jack Rasmus recently noted, the period between 2001 and 2004, when George W. Bush pushed through a series of tax cuts for investors and corporations in the name of creating jobs, actually saw some of the weakest job creation rates on record following a recession.


Ignoring for the moment your myopic view of the world, how does the record of job creation following the 9/11 recession compare to the record of job creation following the Obama Failed Stimulus?

Glass houses and all that...
 
You know what really stimulates the economy?

Peopole with good paying jobs who buy shit.
 
Amy B. Dean: Tax Cuts Create Jobs? Prove It

Since the Clinton era, it has been popular even among Democrats to argue that investment in capital and spurring the economy through low tax rates would lead to job creation. But the evidence amassed since then does not support this idea. As Jack Rasmus recently noted, the period between 2001 and 2004, when George W. Bush pushed through a series of tax cuts for investors and corporations in the name of creating jobs, actually saw some of the weakest job creation rates on record following a recession.


Ignoring for the moment your myopic view of the world, how does the record of job creation following the 9/11 recession compare to the record of job creation following the Obama Failed Stimulus?

Glass houses and all that...


The only "jobs" accomplishment of the Obama Stimulus was the preservation of unnecessary and expensive public employee union jobs at the expense of the private sector.
 
I'm all for tax cuts to spur economic growth but Reagan stuck it up this nation's ass with his Trickle Down Economics (even his own Budget Director called it a Trojan Horse).

However, the tax cuts should go only to the middle class.......

"One interesting quirk of our tax system, however, means that the tax cuts for the “middle class” also benefit Americans who are much richer than “middle class.” In fact, these “middle class” tax cuts benefit richer Americans more than they benefit middle-class Americans."

Trickle-Up Economics? - NYTimes.com
 
I'm all for tax cuts to spur economic growth but Reagan stuck it up this nation's ass with his Trickle Down Economics (even his own Budget Director called it a Trojan Horse).

However, the tax cuts should go only to the middle class.......

"One interesting quirk of our tax system, however, means that the tax cuts for the “middle class” also benefit Americans who are much richer than “middle class.” In fact, these “middle class” tax cuts benefit richer Americans more than they benefit middle-class Americans."

Trickle-Up Economics? - NYTimes.com


A great example of the class warfare mind set.
 
I'm all for tax cuts to spur economic growth but Reagan stuck it up this nation's ass with his Trickle Down Economics (even his own Budget Director called it a Trojan Horse).

However, the tax cuts should go only to the middle class.......

"One interesting quirk of our tax system, however, means that the tax cuts for the “middle class” also benefit Americans who are much richer than “middle class.” In fact, these “middle class” tax cuts benefit richer Americans more than they benefit middle-class Americans."

Trickle-Up Economics? - NYTimes.com


A great example of the class warfare mind set.
You ever notice how the class war is being fought exclusively by people with no class?
 
In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 to assist some French refugees, James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, stood on the floor of the House to object, saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." He later added, "(T)he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." Two hundred years later, at least two-thirds of a multi-trillion-dollar federal budget is spent on charity or "objects of benevolence."

What would the founders think about our respect for democracy and majority rule? Here's what Thomas Jefferson said: "The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society." John Adams advised, "Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." The founders envisioned a republican form of government, but as Benjamin Franklin warned, "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

What would the founders think about the U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 Kelo v. City of New London decision where the court sanctioned the taking of private property of one American to hand over to another American? John Adams explained: "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If 'Thou shalt not covet' and 'Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free."

Thomas Jefferson counseled us not to worship the U.S. Supreme Court: "(T)he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

The Founders' Vision Versus Ours - Walter E. Williams - Townhall Conservative
 
One of President Obama's campaign promises was not to raise taxes on middle-class Americans. So here's my question: If there's a corporate tax increase either in the form of "cap and trade" or income tax, does it turn out to be a middle-class tax increase? Most people would say no but let's look at it.

There's a whole subject area in economics known as tax incidence -- namely, who bears the burden of a tax? The first thing that should be recognized is that the burden of a tax is not necessarily borne by the party upon whom it is levied. That is, for example, if a sales tax is levied on gasoline retailers, they don't bear the full burden of the tax. Part of it is shifted to customers in the form of higher gasoline prices.

Suppose your local politician tells you, as a homeowner, "I'm not going to raise taxes on you! I'm going to raise taxes on your land." You'd probably tell him that he's an idiot because land does not pay taxes; only people pay taxes. That means a tax on your land is a tax on you. You say, "Williams, that's pretty elementary, isn't it?" Not quite.

What about the politician who tells us that he's not going to raise taxes on the middle class; instead, he's going to raise corporate income taxes as means to get rich corporations to pay their rightful share of government? If a tax is levied on a corporation, and if it is to survive, it will have one of three responses, or some combination thereof. One response is to raise the price of its product, so who bears the burden? Another response is to lower dividends; again, who bears the burden? Yet another response is to lay off workers. In each case, it is people, not some legal fiction called a corporation, who bear the burden of the tax.

Because corporations have these responses to the imposition of a tax, they are merely government tax collectors. They collect money from people and send it to Washington. Therefore, you should tell that politician, who promises to tax corporations instead of you, that he's an idiot because corporations, like land, do not pay taxes. Only people pay taxes.

Here's another tax question, even though it doesn't sound like it. Which workers receive higher pay: those on a road construction project moving dirt with shovels and wheelbarrows or those moving dirt atop a giant earthmover? If you said the worker atop the earthmover, go to the head of the class. But why? It's not because he's unionized or that construction contractors have a fondness for earthmover operators. It's because the worker atop the earthmover is working with more capital, thereby making him more productive. Higher productivity means higher wages.
Politicians Exploit Economic Ignorance - Walter E. Williams - Townhall Conservative
 
I'm all for tax cuts to spur economic growth but Reagan stuck it up this nation's ass with his Trickle Down Economics (even his own Budget Director called it a Trojan Horse).

However, the tax cuts should go only to the middle class.......

"One interesting quirk of our tax system, however, means that the tax cuts for the “middle class” also benefit Americans who are much richer than “middle class.” In fact, these “middle class” tax cuts benefit richer Americans more than they benefit middle-class Americans."

Trickle-Up Economics? - NYTimes.com


A great example of the class warfare mind set.

Hmmmm.....back in the 80's our "Idiot in Chief" Ronnie Reagan decided to cut taxes on the wealthy while simultaneously raising taxes on the middle class. THAT'S when the "class warfare" began.

"The Reagan revolution was a major battle in that war, and we lost. The war on poverty became the war on the poor, then on even the middle class."

Tax Reform and Class Warfare
 
I'm all for tax cuts to spur economic growth but Reagan stuck it up this nation's ass with his Trickle Down Economics (even his own Budget Director called it a Trojan Horse).

However, the tax cuts should go only to the middle class.......

"One interesting quirk of our tax system, however, means that the tax cuts for the “middle class” also benefit Americans who are much richer than “middle class.” In fact, these “middle class” tax cuts benefit richer Americans more than they benefit middle-class Americans."

Trickle-Up Economics? - NYTimes.com


A great example of the class warfare mind set.
You ever notice how the class war is being fought exclusively by people with no class?

Coming from a proven LIAR who thinks that "labor costs for domestic cars are almost three times the cost of the foreign badges" I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you.
 
Tax Cuts Create Jobs? Prove It

They can if the SUPPLY SIDE is short of cash to invest in production.

Of course when the SUPPLY SIDE has plenty of cash, and is not investing because the DEMAND SIDE doesn't have enough cash to buy stuff, then tax breaks going to the SUPPLY side are simply dumb economic policy.

As, for example, they are right now.



 
A great example of the class warfare mind set.
You ever notice how the class war is being fought exclusively by people with no class?

Coming from a proven LIAR who thinks that "labor costs for domestic cars are almost three times the cost of the foreign badges" I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you.
You would, but only because your perception of reality is seriously flawed. "If we have more workers in the union, wages for everyone will go up, and businesses will come back to the US!" :cuckoo:
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top