Tax cuts do not create jobs.

[Wry Catcher]

Tax increases do not create jobs.

And we've seen first hand that government spending doesn't create jobs either

Another post which offers conclusions of Republican talking points. Totally insipid and lacking any evidence to support either hypothesis.

Targeted tax cuts can stimulate the economy and lead to job growth; tax cuts to the rich do nothing, if they did we wouldn't have an unemployment problem today. Actually they do something, they help create debt as the government must borrow more than if the rich paid their fair share.

Same goes to the corporate welfare paid to Big Oil, Big Pharma and Big Farma.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Tax cuts do not create jobs.

....And, it helps, not to have any
Teabaggers!!!!!

*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co1cwVXhHQc]‪Brazil's Rising Star‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[The Rabbi]

Tax increases do not create jobs.

And we've seen first hand that government spending doesn't create jobs either

Another post which offers conclusions of Republican talking points. Totally insipid and lacking any evidence to support either hypothesis.

Targeted tax cuts can stimulate the economy and lead to job growth; tax cuts to the rich do nothing, if they did we wouldn't have an unemployment problem today. Actually they do something, they help create debt as the government must borrow more than if the rich paid their fair share.

Same goes to the corporate welfare paid to Big Oil, Big Pharma and Big Farma.

We've had 3 years of targeted tax cuts. Guess what? They've failed.

 

[rightwinger]

You are just too impatient. It has only been ten years. Give it another decade or two and those jobs come tricking down

 

[Stephanie]

Well then, get your idiot President to RAISE EVERYBODYS TAXES. Including you here screaming about TAX CUTS.

See how many friggen JOBS THAT CREATES.

 

[SaneVoice]

Tax increases do not create jobs.

And we've seen first hand that government spending doesn't create jobs either

Another post which offers conclusions of Republican talking points. Totally insipid and lacking any evidence to support either hypothesis.

Targeted tax cuts can stimulate the economy and lead to job growth; tax cuts to the rich do nothing, if they did we wouldn't have an unemployment problem today. Actually they do something, they help create debt as the government must borrow more than if the rich paid their fair share.

Same goes to the corporate welfare paid to Big Oil, Big Pharma and Big Farma.

I don't mean to go all academic on people, but significant tax cuts have been employed four times in the last 100 years, and every time they've been tried, they've worked:

1. President Harding, to avert the Great Depression of 1920. Unlike FDR, who dramatically expanded a recession into a depression, Harding used tax cuts and cuts to government spending (by nearly 50%!) to turn one of the sharpest ever depressions into what we now call the "Roaring 20s".

2. JFK reduced taxes on the rich from 90% leftover from FDR, to 70%. He achieved substantial job and general economic growth, averaging 6% from 1961-1966. JFK and LBJ created about 11 million jobs during their years in office. The US government revenues climbed about 60% as a result, proving rather effectively that (as JFK liked to say) "a rising tide lifts all boats".

3. The Reagan tax cuts increased GDP growth and job creation from a meager 2% under his successor to a peak of nearly 7% in Reagan's time. Economic prosperity almost doubled the size of the US GDP in Reagan's eight years, creating the longest peacetime expansions in US history. Unlike Harding, who was also able to slash government spending, Reagan faced a hostile, big-spending Congress, otherwise growth would have been much stronger. Still, Reagan's creation of 16 million jobs in 8 years, especially after the disastrous policies of his predecessors, is an amazing feat.

4. The Bush tax cuts spurred economic growth and job creation in the years from 2003 to 2008. In the aftermath of 9/11 and the Clinton Recession, Bush's tax cuts were able to keep growth on track while maintaining slow but steady job creation across the US economy over a very difficult five years. Although the 3 million jobs created by Bush sounds low compared to other administrations, were it not for his tax cuts, he would likely have presided over an economy that was a net job loser.

Anyway, back to the original question, above are four examples of tax cuts that created jobs. In fact, over the last 100 years, tax cutting is 4-for-4...care to compare that to liberal alternatives?

It's really, really simple...just remember that for every $100K you take out of the private sector, you LOSE one job. For every $100K you put back in to the private sector, you GET one job.

 

[Stephanie]

Tax increases do not create jobs.

And we've seen first hand that government spending doesn't create jobs either

Another post which offers conclusions of Republican talking points. Totally insipid and lacking any evidence to support either hypothesis.

Targeted tax cuts can stimulate the economy and lead to job growth; tax cuts to the rich do nothing, if they did we wouldn't have an unemployment problem today. Actually they do something, they help create debt as the government must borrow more than if the rich paid their fair share.

Same goes to the corporate welfare paid to Big Oil, Big Pharma and Big Farma.

I don't mean to go all academic on people, but significant tax cuts have been employed four times in the last 100 years, and every time they've been tried, they've worked:

1. President Harding, to avert the Great Depression of 1920. Unlike FDR, who dramatically expanded a recession into a depression, Harding used tax cuts and cuts to government spending (by nearly 50%!) to turn one of the sharpest ever depressions into what we now call the "Roaring 20s".

2. JFK reduced taxes on the rich from 90% leftover from FDR, to 70%. He achieved substantial job and general economic growth, averaging 6% from 1961-1966. JFK and LBJ created about 11 million jobs during their years in office. The US government revenues climbed about 60% as a result, proving rather effectively that (as JFK liked to say) "a rising tide lifts all boats".

3. The Reagan tax cuts increased GDP growth and job creation from a meager 2% under his successor to a peak of nearly 7% in Reagan's time. Economic prosperity almost doubled the size of the US GDP in Reagan's eight years, creating the longest peacetime expansions in US history. Unlike Harding, who was also able to slash government spending, Reagan faced a hostile, big-spending Congress, otherwise growth would have been much stronger. Still, Reagan's creation of 16 million jobs in 8 years, especially after the disastrous policies of his predecessors, is an amazing feat.

4. The Bush tax cuts spurred economic growth and job creation in the years from 2003 to 2008. In the aftermath of 9/11 and the Clinton Recession, Bush's tax cuts were able to keep growth on track while maintaining slow but steady job creation across the US economy over a very difficult five years. Although the 3 million jobs created by Bush sounds low compared to other administrations, were it not for his tax cuts, he would likely have presided over an economy that was a net job loser.

Anyway, back to the original question, above are four examples of tax cuts that created jobs. In fact, over the last 100 years, tax cutting is 4-for-4...care to compare that to liberal alternatives?

It's really, really simple...just remember that for every $100K you take out of the private sector, you LOSE one job. For every $100K you put back in to the private sector, you GET one job.

That will be way too much for the dummies here to digest. Their big dummy Rep. master, Schumer says WE NEED TO RAISE TAXES, and that's all they need.

 

[kaz]

You are just too impatient. It has only been ten years. Give it another decade or two and those jobs come tricking down

What the left has proven is that you can make poverty trickle up

 

[Wry Catcher]

Tax increases do not create jobs.

And we've seen first hand that government spending doesn't create jobs either

Another post which offers conclusions of Republican talking points. Totally insipid and lacking any evidence to support either hypothesis.

Targeted tax cuts can stimulate the economy and lead to job growth; tax cuts to the rich do nothing, if they did we wouldn't have an unemployment problem today. Actually they do something, they help create debt as the government must borrow more than if the rich paid their fair share.

Same goes to the corporate welfare paid to Big Oil, Big Pharma and Big Farma.

We've had 3 years of targeted tax cuts. Guess what? They've failed.

We've had Bush tax cut #1 for 10 years and Bush tax cut #2 for 7 years and a recent extension of both. Guess what, they totally failed.

 

[Toro]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/178090-tax-cuts-create-jobs.html#post3936015

 

[uscitizen]

Apparently tax increases don't create jobs either...

Glad that you agree that tax cuts do not create jobs.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Tax increases do not create jobs.

And we've seen first hand that government spending doesn't create jobs either

Another post which offers conclusions of Republican talking points. Totally insipid and lacking any evidence to support either hypothesis.

Targeted tax cuts can stimulate the economy and lead to job growth; tax cuts to the rich do nothing, if they did we wouldn't have an unemployment problem today. Actually they do something, they help create debt as the government must borrow more than if the rich paid their fair share.

Same goes to the corporate welfare paid to Big Oil, Big Pharma and Big Farma.

I don't mean to go all academic on people, but significant tax cuts have been employed four times in the last 100 years, and every time they've been tried, they've worked:

1. President Harding, to avert the Great Depression of 1920. Unlike FDR, who dramatically expanded a recession into a depression, Harding used tax cuts and cuts to government spending (by nearly 50%!) to turn one of the sharpest ever depressions into what we now call the "Roaring 20s".

2. JFK reduced taxes on the rich from 90% leftover from FDR, to 70%. He achieved substantial job and general economic growth, averaging 6% from 1961-1966. JFK and LBJ created about 11 million jobs during their years in office. The US government revenues climbed about 60% as a result, proving rather effectively that (as JFK liked to say) "a rising tide lifts all boats".

3. The Reagan tax cuts increased GDP growth and job creation from a meager 2% under his successor to a peak of nearly 7% in Reagan's time. Economic prosperity almost doubled the size of the US GDP in Reagan's eight years, creating the longest peacetime expansions in US history. Unlike Harding, who was also able to slash government spending, Reagan faced a hostile, big-spending Congress, otherwise growth would have been much stronger. Still, Reagan's creation of 16 million jobs in 8 years, especially after the disastrous policies of his predecessors, is an amazing feat.

4. The Bush tax cuts spurred economic growth and job creation in the years from 2003 to 2008. In the aftermath of 9/11 and the Clinton Recession, Bush's tax cuts were able to keep growth on track while maintaining slow but steady job creation across the US economy over a very difficult five years. Although the 3 million jobs created by Bush sounds low compared to other administrations, were it not for his tax cuts, he would likely have presided over an economy that was a net job loser.

Anyway, back to the original question, above are four examples of tax cuts that created jobs. In fact, over the last 100 years, tax cutting is 4-for-4...care to compare that to liberal alternatives?

It's really, really simple...just remember that for every $100K you take out of the private sector, you LOSE one job. For every $100K you put back in to the private sector, you GET one job.

I'm very glad you didn't go all academic, there's not enough space to argue one cause had the effects you claim. Simple explanations to very complex matters is what got us into the mess we're in today. Demagogoues on the right have convinced the sign carrying Tea Party mob that simple solutions (cut taxes, cut regulations) is the panacea for alll that went wrong during the lost decade (2001 - 2009).

 

[HenryBHough]

It is true that tax cuts do not, of themselves, create jobs. Some of the people receiving them are already out of business so are in no position to create anything. Do not overlook that tax cuts, given in timely fashion, frequently prevent the necessity of going out of business. Immediate effect: Jobs saved. Long-term effect, the ability and desire to grow a business, creating employment.

The full effect of tax cuts may take a little time to be felt.

The full effect of tax increases (unemployment, businesses closing, offshoring) is sudden and awful.

I speak from experience from having, under a previous regime, opted to NOT hire when it would have been convenient so to do. Subsequently closing the business entirely in favour of what should logically have been premature retirement.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I note the assertion by saneoice that FDR created the Great Depression. That is one abusrd effort to rewrite history. FDR didn't take the oath of office until March 1933, much like Obama, FDR was handed a mess without any blueprint to fix what went horribly wrong in October 1929, an effect with many causes.

 

[whitehall]

Letting politicians reach into your wallet is like ....giving a community activist a stolen ATM card. The federal government does not generate wealth. It confiscates it. Politicians aren't smart enough to run a business even if they were allowed to. The "shovel-ready" jobs Barry snickered about would not generate wealth. They would drop the unemployment numbers for a little while until the taxpayer money ran out or the feds squeezed every drop of blood out of middle class business owners.

 

[HenryBHough]

I note the assertion by saneoice that FDR created the Great Depression. That is one abusrd effort to rewrite history. FDR didn't take the oath of office until March 1933, much like Obama, FDR was handed a mess without any blueprint to fix what went horribly wrong in October 1929, an effect with many causes.

No question that FDR didn't start.

He merely ended it by dragging The U.S. into World War II.

Dead soldiers don't come home and sign up for unemployment.

Who says Our Kenyan President is ineducable?

 

[whitehall]

I note the assertion by saneoice that FDR created the Great Depression. That is one abusrd effort to rewrite history. FDR didn't take the oath of office until March 1933, much like Obama, FDR was handed a mess without any blueprint to fix what went horribly wrong in October 1929, an effect with many causes.

No question that FDR didn't start.

He merely ended it by dragging The U.S. into World War II.

Dead soldiers don't come home and sign up for unemployment.

Who says Our Kenyan President is ineducable?

FDR was elected in 1932 on a promise of ending the recession. Under his leadership in 2 1/2 terms the recession turned into a man-killing depression. The big slob didn't even have the courtesy to bow out honorably after two terms like every other president. He forced the US to pass an Amendment so fools like him couldn't run for more than two terms.

 

[yidnar]

TAX CUTS DO NOT CREATE JOBS.

Do you have a link showing the entire field of economics is wrong?

Actually..can you show where tax cuts have created jobs in America? (Because American Tax Cuts do create jobs in other countries)

I damn as hell can show that GOVERNMENT SPENDING does.

what is the minimal amount of money does some one need to be considered rich.and what %of taxes should they pay???

 

[Toro]

I don't mean to go all academic on people, but significant tax cuts have been employed four times in the last 100 years, and every time they've been tried, they've worked:

The tax take of the federal government has risen slowly over the past 100 years, yet GDP growth has been fairly constant.

1. President Harding, to avert the Great Depression of 1920. Unlike FDR, who dramatically expanded a recession into a depression, Harding used tax cuts and cuts to government spending (by nearly 50%!) to turn one of the sharpest ever depressions into what we now call the "Roaring 20s".

It is a right-wing myth to say that FDR expanded a recession into a depression, given that the economy expanded under FDR. The sharpest economic growth of the past century occurred under FDR even though he dramatically raised income taxes. Now, I'm not saying that's causal - its not. However, the economy expanded at a very high rate even though tax rates went up.

Also, the 1920 recession was very, very different from the Depression. The 1920s recession was caused by a steep drop-off in war spending and the demobilization of the armed forces. "The Roaring 20s" was anything but for most people. Median incomes were stagnant or grew slowly while the top of the income ladder increased dramatically. To keep up, installment debt expanded dramatically, helping fuel a bubble in stocks, which ultimately crashed. The Depression was caused initially by an implosion in debt, but then severely exacerbated by a Federal Reserve which stood by as bank credit shrunk by a third and committed horrendous policy mistakes like raising the discount rate from 1.5% to 3.5% in 1931 to stem the outflow of gold.

2. JFK reduced taxes on the rich from 90% leftover from FDR, to 70%. He achieved substantial job and general economic growth, averaging 6% from 1961-1966. JFK and LBJ created about 11 million jobs during their years in office. The US government revenues climbed about 60% as a result, proving rather effectively that (as JFK liked to say) "a rising tide lifts all boats".

JFK, the demand-side tax cutter. - By David Greenberg - Slate Magazine

Also, please note that LBJ dramatically increased the government's role in the economy.

3. The Reagan tax cuts increased GDP growth and job creation from a meager 2% under his successor to a peak of nearly 7% in Reagan's time. Economic prosperity almost doubled the size of the US GDP in Reagan's eight years, creating the longest peacetime expansions in US history. Unlike Harding, who was also able to slash government spending, Reagan faced a hostile, big-spending Congress, otherwise growth would have been much stronger. Still, Reagan's creation of 16 million jobs in 8 years, especially after the disastrous policies of his predecessors, is an amazing feat.

Total jobs at the end of

1976 79.502 million
1980 90.528 million

Compounded annual rate of growth in jobs 1977-80: 3.3%

1988 105.345 million

Compounded annual rate of growth in jobs 1981-88: 1.9%

1992 108.726
2000 131.785

Compounded annual rate of growth in jobs 1993-2000: 2.4%

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

Real GDP at the end of

1976 $5,136.9
1980 $5,834.0

Compounded annual rate of growth in GDP 1977-80: 3.2%

1988 $7,607.4

Compounded annual rate of growth in GDP 1981-88: 3.4%

1992 $8,280.0
2000 $11,216.4

Compounded annual rate of growth in GDP 1993-2000: 3.8%

http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls

Please note that Clinton raised taxes.

4. The Bush tax cuts spurred economic growth and job creation in the years from 2003 to 2008. In the aftermath of 9/11 and the Clinton Recession, Bush's tax cuts were able to keep growth on track while maintaining slow but steady job creation across the US economy over a very difficult five years. Although the 3 million jobs created by Bush sounds low compared to other administrations, were it not for his tax cuts, he would likely have presided over an economy that was a net job loser.

Bush presided over the housing bubble. By some estimates, nearly half the jobs created in the last decade were either directly or indirectly related to the Housing Bubble. Bush bares little responsibility for the Housing Bubble, but its a canard to attribute tax cuts to much of the jobs created, unless you also wish to acknowledge that the Bush tax cuts contributed to the biggest financial mess since the Depression. I'm not.

 

[Toro]

I note the assertion by saneoice that FDR created the Great Depression. That is one abusrd effort to rewrite history. FDR didn't take the oath of office until March 1933, much like Obama, FDR was handed a mess without any blueprint to fix what went horribly wrong in October 1929, an effect with many causes.

It's pretty ridiculous to say that FDR turned a recession into a Depression, considering that real GDP had shrunk 25% before he was sworn into office and then began to turn up in early 1933.

However, it is fair to say that the economy began to expand before FDR was sworn in, and some of his policies inhibited the recovery.

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom