Do tax cuts help create Jobs?

Are the facts, truth, and reality not sufficient?

Three of the Largest Tax Cuts in US History......did yield three of the largest periods of Job Growth and Revenue Growth in US History.

We can get as detailed as you wish.....but its not going to change the facts, truth, or reality.
.
.
.

 

The <<< Mod Edit: Off Topic >>> BLS....
.
.
.

 

Actually individuals do pay corporate taxes but it doesn't show up under accounting practices that way. If stockholders own a corporation then the stockholders pay the corporate taxes as that is money they would be entitled to if there were no corporate taxes.

This is the same as it is for a person that privately owns an interprise. The enterprise must pay federal taxes and that money comes directly out of the owners pocket.

 

ROFLMAO of that's rich, the Democrats take over the purse stings announcing the Bush budgets DoA and it's irrelevant.

I think your answer was irrelevant. Try again.

A business slowdown he inherited which turned into a recession is irrelevant to tax revenues...................utter folly.

Yeah people pay corporate taxes. Especially small sub-chapter S corporations. In fact by 2007 corporate taxes were up 78% over 2000.

 

Doesnt matter....as any and all tax cuts are beneficial to job creation.

Yes its true certain tax cuts will be more beneficial than others, but it doesnt change the underlying principle.....as there is no such thing as a tax cut that is detrimental to job growth.

The Private Sector and Free Market in this country is the Job Engine and where wealth creation takes place......its the host organism.....every cent that the parasite of government sucks from the host.....is detrimental to Job Creation.
.
.
.

 

Individuals don't pay corporate taxes. Corporations do. That is undisputed fact.

You can argue that individuals bear the cost of corporate taxes indirectly, but many (like our Fairtax friends) would argue that the cost of corporate taxes is actually born by consumers in the form of higher costs for products and services. In which case it would be inaccurate to apportion these costs to shareholders.

 

A tax cut that reduces money being expended isn't directly beneficial to job creation, where there is already plenty of capital available, as is the case now.

 

Yes, the issue you jumped in on is whether the economy was the reason for income tax revenues being down for 4 years in 2001 thru 2006 when the economy grew every year.

Try again.

That's not what you said. Reread your prior post. You said:

"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."

Irrelevant.

Corporations pay corporate income taxes. See my prior post.

 

There might be exceptions related to the first statement if we're referring to US jobs and the tax cuts are for foreign countries providing goods or services in the US.

Yes, targeted tax cuts can provide a major increase in jobs while other tax cuts may not result in many jobs at all.

If we want to get really specific then the best tax cuts relate to the production of commodities. All wealth originates with something that is either mined or grown and any subsequent processes that bring the commodity to the market. All service sector jobs are parasitic related to manufacturing/production jobs. Wealth is an attribute of commodities and commodities must be produced.

 

No you're doing the jumping

Originally Posted by Bluesguy
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?

Originally Posted by Iriemon
"Had" being the key word.

Originally Posted by Bluesguy
Yes and then the Democrats took over the Congress. What was unemployment then?

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


Originally Posted by Bluesguy
ROFLMAO of that's rich, the Democrats take over the purse stings announcing the Bush budgets DoA and it's irrelevant.

I think your answer was irrelevant. Try again.

Sub-Chapter S. The numbers posted were for Corporate taxes paid on individual tax returns.

 

If tax cuts create jobs, how can we have the lowest tax rates in 60 years and almost 10% unemployment at the same time?

Then you have Warren Buffet.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20092380-503544.html

Is he misrepresenting his tax rate?

Is he lying about his income?

How can the top earner in the country pay less taxes than his employees?

If there is solid evidence, I would certainly accept it as such, but there is a lot of contradictory evidence to suggest that lower tax rates don't decrease unemployment, and that the Mega-rich should pay more taxes.

 

While the Bush adminstration failed to reduce spending to accommodate his 2001-2003 tax cuts the GDP increased by roughly 25% between 2001-2006 and about 14 million new workers entered the workforce while unemployment remained within the 4%-6% range which is considered to be normal. So we can assume that 14 million new jobs were created during this timeframe.

It isn't a decrease in unemployment that matters but instead an increase in employment. For example today the unemployment rate is about 9% and has been but the approximately 200,000 individuals entering the workforce monthy are not being counted amoung the unemployed. They are a limbo category having not been a part of the existing workforce and yet they are unemployed.

 

What taxes have been cut?

Probably.

He probably pays more than all of them combined.

The first Bush tax cuts helped to keep unemployment from going higher than 6.5% during the recession he inherited. Think about that 6.5% was as high as it went and only for ONE month. His second tax rate cut ushered in 52 months of FULL EMPLOYMENT. Also brought 3 years of deficit reduction with the deficit falling to $161 Billion before the Democrats won back control of the Congress.

What more evidence do you need?

What is a Mega-rich and how much more should they pay?

 

And when in US History or World History has this actually occurred?
.
.
.

 

We don't have to assume. We have the data.

Jan 2001 132469
Jan 2007 137094

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm

4.6 million new jobs were added. Of that, 3.3 million were in the private sector.

 

During this last recession, I believe. I am speaking of spending by those who receive the tax cuts.

 

The fault in your logic is that looking at the percentage decrease (instead of percent of income) is that a guy you paid 1% of his income in taxes and then pays .5% didn't get a bigger tax cut than a guy who paid 50% of his income and after the tax cut pays 26%.

The former saved 0.5% of his income from the tax cut, the latter, 14%.

 

Tax Cuts alone cannot stop Acts of Allah, Natural Disasters, Government made Disasters, or The Most Anti-Business President in history....there are other factors in the job creation equation.

If the tax rate was raised to 95% tomorrow....do you think that would (help/hurt) job creation in this country?

....if you can admit to that.....then your question and the question poised in the OP has been answered tenfold...and for some the truth hurts.

Tax Cheat Warren Buffet.....since 2002.....you guys really need a better poster boy.
.
.
.

 

A tax cut that reduces money being expended

......and you believe tax cuts somehow influenced or even lessened the reckless and out of control spending of Obama--Pelosi--Reid--The Most Expensive President, Speaker, and Senate Leader in World History?
.
.
.

 

What reckless and out of control spending?

 

He did not say he paid less taxes, he said he paid a lower percentage rate than his help. This is becaus most of his income is capital gains and is taxed at a ower rate than regular income. The Republicaqns are always saying we should lower the Capital Gains Tax in order to create jobs. Maybe it would do that. But that is the tax most rich people pay. Every Republican president has wanted to lower this tax, every democrat wants to raise it. Wonder what their motivation is?

 

The highest earners pay double the effective tax rates of the middle even with Cap Gains tax at 15%. The highest earners pay a higher Cap Gain rate and pay and higher Inc rate than the middle.

 

then why is unemployment over 9% despite a 60 year low in tax rates?

your not going to get around this little speed bump in your argument, no matter how many times you ignore it.

 

That speed bump you cling to has been addressed ad nauseum......most recently in post #468

http://www.politicalforum.com/opinion-polls/200296-do-tax-cuts-help-create-jobs-47.html#post4512776

Do you have anything else?.....
.
.
.

 

We're still living with the Bush tax cuts. Where is the unemployment rate now, eh?

You know what they say about statistics, right? Jose Canseco was a .400 hitter! (for a month).