If your employer could get a big taxcut, would they hire more workers?

[kentuck]

Or would they divvy out the extra profits to their stockholders and management? Would they invest in more jobs if the demand for their products was not there? I doubt it.

Most employers hire more workers when they are paying more in overtime than they would at regular time for more employees. They don't hire people just because they get a taxbreak, as a general rule.

But this is the bullshit that the Republican Party is trying to sell to the American people. Just eight years ago, they tried it with the largest taxcuts in history. But there were less jobs created in the last eight years than at any time in modern history. So what happened?

Taxcuts do not create jobs. Demand for products create jobs. Supply side is dead.

[rucky]

1. They'll pocket anything extra they get.

safe rule of thumb when dealing with business.

[av8rdave]

2. No, they would not.

That will only happen when customer demand creates the need for more workers. It's as simple as that.

[Lasher]

3. Yes, they would hire more workers.

In China and India.

[SharonAnn]

5. Probably not actually. They'd lie about it. Lay off a highly paid person then hire a minimum wager

[Lasher]

19. They did it with the 2001 & 2003 tax cuts.

With less of a tax incentive to reinvest corportate profits in US factories, the investor class used their newly portable capital to invest in offshore operations, at a cost of jobs in the US. The process continues to this day, and that's one reason why we need to get our tax structure back to something like it was before Saint Ronnie.

[rrneck]

4. They would prefer to

increase productivity without raising payroll costs.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. Businesses don't hire any more employees than they need

to produce the goods or provide the services they sell. If there is insufficient demand for what the business sells, they won't hire more employees no matter what kind of tax breaks they get because that would be stupid. The business would end up with a huge inventory of unsold widgets or whatever, which they'd eventually have to sell at a loss. So IMO, no; tax cuts would end up in the pockets of the executives and the shareholders.

[lindisfarne]

7. It depends on how much of the worker's compensation was covered by the tax cuts. If it covered 70%,

probably. Who's going to argue about that? I'm sure most employers would take that.
If it covered 5%, probably not.

But, could the funds represented by the hypothetical tax cut be used better if collected by the government & given to K-12 education?

[Turbineguy]

8. They would only hire people

if they need more people. And they would do that whether they got a tax cut or not.

So this is the same old repub bullshit. They won't stop until they destroy the country and when they do they will blame the Democrats. That's how it works.

[abumbyanyothername]

9. I am thinking it may go deeper than that.

I am starting to think that the whole "jobs for money; money for consumption" model is broken.

First off lets look at a couple of examples -- the US military certainly isn't paying anything like what the services provided (and the risks taken) by their rank and file is worth; nor did the President's political campaign (mostly staffed by volunteers). Why do we assume that no one could be convinced to work at the sewage plant, or invent life saving medicines unless motivated by money?

Today I have been trying to grasp all the costs that are associated with the inequitable distribution of wealth -- the inefficiencies are staggering. This is not a communist manifesto . . . I'm just saying that if the sum total of all energy that went into production were converted to credits and the credits divided on a regular basis across the whole population, and each produced item could be "rented" for the number of credits corresponding to the energy consumption associated with such usage . . .

1) No banks.
2) No lobbying to protect profits.
3) No "saving for retirement" or, for that matter, social security.
4) No need for a separate health plan.
5) No lawyers to protect vast accumulations of wealth.

etc., etc., etc.

Oh well, Sunday Utopia here in Santa Monica.

[TexasObserver]

10. Employers don't hire more workers until they have work for them to do.

The past 20 years has been a steady trampling of US produced goods, and invasion of foreign workers to supplant American workers who are too "uppity" and want things like a living wage, health care, and workers' rights.

Help protect American jobs and we'll help Americans get back to work.

[gmoney]

11. "Demand for products create jobs."

that's it.

[kentuck]

14. But then...

even if there is the demand for products, people have to have the money to buy them. Put money in consumers pockets and they tend to spend it. Usually the best way to put money in people's pockets is with an increase in wages or a decrease in their taxes - not to be confused with a tax decrease for their employer, although on a smaller scale, they too would spend or invest in stocks or save, since they probably have all the products they need or want already.

[gmoney]

31. But that's not the question...

The OP was regarding if employers receive tax cuts, will that prompt them to hire new people, and the answer is that tax cuts alone won't prompt hiring.

If a company has enough employees to meet production demands, there's no reason to hire more people. Very few companies need to hire, and most are downsizing, hence the huge unemployment numbers. A tax cut won't create a demand for more product to require more workers.

If a company experienced a HUGE windfall, they might look at expanding their business, or buying other companies (like the bailout banks did -- they bought other banks, rather than hire more staff to provide better service to existing customers).

Yes, if a business receives tax cuts and the owners receive more profits, they may buy new yachts or ermine golf club covers, but more likely is that they'll bank it where it won't do anyone any good or create any jobs.

[kentuck]

32. I agree.

:-)

[scarletwoman]

12. No, they'd go buy a bigger yacht for themselves. (nt)

[izquierdista]

13. Trickle down

I don't see where any of it has. Not when the top 1% have vacuum collectors to make sure the money flow is up. What has proliferated in recent years are the title pawn/payday loan stores, which really turns up the suction on pulling money out of poor people's wallets.

[HughMoran]

15. Depends. If they desperately need help and weren't sure they could afford it

then yes, they would. Since the business is not there at this time, cutting their taxes would do nothing but line the pockets of those who already make enough.

A tax cut targeted ONLY for those who create a proportionate number of jobs might work.

[bluestateguy]

16. Only if there was demand for their product

Otherwise the money would simply be pocketed and saved for a rainy day.

It works the same way at the individual level too. Give a gainfully employed person a tax cut--say he is making $60,000 a year--but he has been terrified of losing his job for the last year. Will he spend the money? Of course not. It will go straight into his savings account as padding in the event that he is laid off in the coming months.

[kentuck]

25. I know someone who works for a company who laid off a bunch of people...

and their productivity went up 20% last quarter and they froze all the wages and they have no plans to hire anyone else?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

17. More workers

but then I work for a non-profit where the founder and head works for no salary. She has a second job to support her and the Foundation's work. She'd love to have the money to hire a second doctor and more ancillary professionals, but we don't have the funding.

[iris27]

18. NO.

My employer started cutting labor hours last fall, before our store had even begun losing sales, because other stores in the company were doing poorly and top management issued orders to cut across the board. Now we are expected to keep our hours "in line with sales", which basically means each week we cut more, and more, and more as sales continue to tank. Any tax cut they were given now would just be held onto in an attempt to pad the accounts and staunch the bleeding.

I do have to give them a small bit of credit in that they have yet (at least in my store) to actually fire anyone...they've just cut all our hours and not replaced anyone who left voluntarily. But I hold no illusions that they'd use any tax cut they were given to increase our hours or hire more people.

[Vinca]

20. The one thing that might stop outsourcing is single-payer healthcare.

I'm always bitching about outsourcing, but you can't blame a company for choosing between a giant health insurance bill and no health insurance bill and opting to send American jobs overseas. Medical care should not be tied to employment.

[pnwmom]

21. No. No point unless they had more orders. n/t

[Pharlo]

23. Same here.

They don't have enough orders to keep the people they have now working. They certainly aren't going to hire new people until they've called everyone back.

As for a tax break - without the orders, it won't make a difference.

[kentuck]

22. I wonder why these Neanderthals continue to believe this BS?

Are they really that stupid?

[baldguy]

24. They already gotten big tax cuts, remember?

Under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton & Bush II.

[Iggo]

26. No.

The only reason they'd hire more workers was if there was more work to do.

[ColbertWatcher]

27. "Taxcuts do not create jobs. Demand for products create jobs. Supply side is dead." QFT n/t

[HawkerHurricane]

28. No.

I know you all know this already, but if given a tax cut, most employers will invest in factories in Burma rather than hire more people/pay the people they have more.

Here's how you use taxes to get employers to hire more people/raise pay to the people they have:
Raise taxes, but leave a loophole where money spent on employees isn't taxed.
Oh, you need to put a cap on it, so CEO's don't just take the extra money and pay themselves more.

But you know this. Now, will someone tell Congress?

[rollingrock]

29. Supply side economics is alive and well under Geithner and Summers

give all the taxpayer dollars to Wall Street, and hope that they might loan some it back to the people at interest so they can make a big profit.

[LostInAnomie]

30. Why would they?

I know the myth that "tax cuts will allow employers to expand their businesses and hire more workers", but the mythological expansion actually has to be based on something. Unless there is increased demand for a product, it would be pointless to hire more workers.