Do tax cuts help create Jobs?

And yet you believe a decrease in production costs will not yield lower costs.

.
.

 

That's right ONLY include the last 13 months of the Bush Administration, make sure you DON'T include the 53 months of uninterrupted Job Growth, only the second longest in Modern History, behind the Reagan, Bush Sr. Era

 

You forget about competition. If you're in business making Widgets that you sell for say $100.00. As part of your cost of doing business, your cost includes let's just say $24.00 for taxes. Theoretically, you COULD simply pocket the money, but your competition decides, they're going to split it. Lowering their's by $12.00. Now you have a good ol' fashion price war going on.

But let's say that there isn't any competition and you get to keep all of it. What do Corporations do with extra cash? They usually invest it in something that creates jobs!

Either way the Consumer or the Worker or both wins.

 

For every 10 dollars of taxes cut, 1 dollar is used to create jobs.

That's what I believe.

 

Does software cost less when you download it???
They don't have to distribute it, or put it on a disk.
It cost less to produce.

They WILL charge as much as they can (or what the market will allow).

Corporations are sitting on tons of money now...but they are not creating jobs...not here anyway.

 

And competition is fine...just try to compete with Wal Mart.

They will lower prices locally...take a temporary loss...and put you under.

 

Well for every ten dollars of taxes.....how many dollars are used to create jobs?
.
.
.
.

 

Uhhh hello Freeware? Hello Shareware?

Call them up and ask them to put it on a disk for you and ship it out for free.....

Perhaps because our current President cant go 5 minutes without calling for new taxes and new regulations?
.
.
.

 

Somebody wrote that if the United States imposes high tariffs on imports that companies like Boeing will just give the business away to Airbus. This thing about applying high tariffs would also have to be imposed by our European allies. They are actually in worse shape then the United States. What is killing Europe and the United States are countries like China, Vietnam and others where they don't want to cooperate with them adjusting their currencies to create an even trade. Right now it is a one way trade. Companies like the Wal-Marts and others are buying all of what they sell from China for pennies and are making billions. Also paying minimum wages and real bad benefits. That is why they don't want Unions within their company.
The Euro is in trouble, so the Europeans have to increase tariffs as well as the United States and it is mostly on China goods and other Asian countries. Force these big companies to reinvest in the United States and they will move their companies back into this country if it gets too expensive for them to sell their Chinese goods here.

If people have money and good jobs in this country, they do not mind paying the higher prices. But when people don't have jobs, then the whole country goes down.

The Bush tax cuts have not created any jobs in the last twelve years in this country. They have created jobs over seas, but this global economics is not working for us and Europe, so something has to be done immediately. About the only western country that has protectionism is Germany and they are doing just fine. We need to learn from the Germans that a certain amount of protectionism is good if you want to keep a healthy economy.

I am not saying to increase the percentage what big business pays. I am saying that they have too many loop holes and are not paying any taxes to reduce the deficit in this country.

And if the Republicans completely refuse to tax the billionaires, then see if the president can negotiate a flat rate 10% tax rate across the board for everybody in this country. That would be a fair tax, and I am all for it.

 

Employment Level After The Bush Tax Cuts


Unemployment Rate after The Bush Tax Cuts

.
.
.

 

The whole picture:

Unemployment with Bush tax cuts:

 

One dollar.

I don't buy the tax/job dichotomy. Especially with all the regulation against business owners that keeps them from hiring people, like Obamacare, and all this bearuecratic BS with the IRS and various regulatory bodies like the SEC, FDA, etc. etc.

 

Companies do it all over the country.

 

We had 52 months of full employment after the Bush tax cuts, FULL EMPLOYMENT. Kinda hard to create a lot of jobs when everyone is working isn't it?

After the Bush tax cuts the tax burden shifted even more onto the billionaires and millionaires and Obama's favorites the 205Kaires. They paid more in actual dollars and a higher percentage of total taxes as millions at the bottom had any tax liabilities totally wiped out.

Because of those policies the deficits fell in 2005, 2006 and 2007 down to $161 Billion. The Democrats took over in 2008 and they are now TEN TIMES that.

 

Yes look how it fell until the Democrats took over the Congress and the purse strings. Thanks for posting it.

 

"Had" being the key word. Unemployment was at 7.8% and skyrocketing when Bush left office.

Effective income tax rate, richest 1%
2000 24.2
2001 24.1
2002 23.7
2003 20.4
2004 19.7
2005 19.4

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/Appendix_tables_toc.xls

 

Interesting statistics. That reflects a 5.5% reduction in the effective tax rates for the top 1%

At the sametime from the same table for the middle quentile the effective tax rate was:

2000 16.6%
2001 15.3%
2002 14.8%
2003 13.8%
2004 14.1%
2005 14.2%

That reflects a 14.5% reduction in the effective tax rate for the middle quentile. While not posting the actual statistics the effective tax rate for the lowest quentile went down almost 33%.

It would appear that the effective tax rate went down for everyone but went down the least for higher income individuals.

Of note the GDP increased by about 25% during those six years so it appears that the lower effective tax rates might have been a factor in the increase in the GDP.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...011mcn__US_Gross_Domestic_Product_GDP_History

At the sametime unemployment increased but stayed within the typical 4%-6% range which reflects normal job transitions that take place. During that timeframe about 14 million people were added to the workforce (roughly 200K people enter the workforce monthly from what I recall). Of course I'm not a real fan of the DOL statistics because the "official" unemployment rate is not the actual unemployment rate which is always higher.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html

I would again point out that what taxes are cut is more important than simply cutting taxes when it relates to job creation. Cutting taxes that reduce the cost of production that would provide a pricing advantage for the US in the international marketplace would be where I would focus. That would increase the export of goods which would require more workers to produce.

 

You're mnaking an error comparing percentage points with percentage decreases.

Richest 1% went from 24.2% to 19.4%. That is 4.8% of their income they saved. For the middle class it went down 16.6% to 14.2%. They saved 2.4% of their income.

Causal fallacy. But you'd have to look at the GDP for all the years the tax cuts have been in place to get a more accurate view.

And it sucked.

 

not a solid answer bad mutha, i am looking to learn, octo provided a more concrete factual type answer. not interested in hearsay, let's hear some fairly reputable data.

 

What is the source of those graphs?

 

The question is also about:
Tax cuts for who?
Large multinational companies.
Middle sized companies.
Small 1-2 person companies.
Regular people.

 

This is a liberal distortion of the facts as they relate to a "progressive" income tax. When "progressive" tax rates are involved only the percentage of decrease is relevant. If someone pays no taxes then they cannot have a reduction in the effective tax rate. When someone pays the vast majority of taxes any decrease can be made to appear to be greater but only the percentage of the decrease is relevant.

 

It depends on what the tax cut is meant to accomplish. If it is to increase jobs then cutting or better still eliminating embedded taxation on US production and services for corporations whether large, middle or small increases the number of jobs by allowing lower product costs. The tax cuts need to focus on reducing the costs of US produced goods and services.

Currently lowering tax rates on individuals won't do much because the average American is not using extra disposable income to purchase goods or services. They are using extra disposable income to pay down personal debt. The paying down of personal debt will result in the eventual increase in spending on goods and services but it will take a couple of years for personal debt to come down to less than 100% of annual income. So eventually it works to increase consumption and create jobs but not today or in the immediate future.

 

Yes and then the Democrats took over the Congress. What was unemployment then?

Yes after two years of Democrat control of Congress and then they took the WH and took the unemployment to over 10%.

Bush and Republican Congress had 52 months of full employment.

Total effective tax rate

2006 31.2%

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2009/effective_rates.pdf

 

Irrelevant to the point that income tax revenues were down after the Bush tax cuts despite 4 years of growth.

Irrelevant to the point that income tax revenues were down after the Bush tax cuts despite 4 years of growth.

That figure includes corporate taxes. Individuals don't pay corporate taxes. And irrelevant to the point that income tax revenues were down after the Bush tax cuts despite 4 years of growth.