Copy and paste after me: Tax cuts do not create jobs

[ck4829]

"When it comes to creating jobs, Americans are slightly more likely to say that government funding of infrastructure improvements and other projects is a better approach than relying on tax cuts for individuals and businesses, according to a new Gallup Poll."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114256/Gov-Projects-Seen-Better-Job-Creation-Tax-Cuts.aspx

Tax cuts do not create jobs.

"There is no connection between tax cuts for the rich and job creation, says a recently published study by United for a Fair Economy. In fact, slow job growth, declining wages and benefits, accompanied by widening income and employment inequality by race and ethnicity is the hallmark of Bushonomics."
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/2561/1/144/

Tax cuts. Do not. Create jobs.

"Overall, 76% of Americans said they would have preferred the government devote resources to job programs instead of tax cuts in 2003."
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-227730/Most-Americans-Say-Job-Creation.html

Tax cuts don't create jobs.

"As outrage in Congress stalls the Bush administration's attempts this Thanksgiving season to extend tax cuts that will primarily benefit the wealthy, a new study, "Nothing to Be Thankful For: Tax Cuts and the Deteriorating U.S. Job Market", examines the administration's claim that tax cuts create jobs -- and finds it without merit."
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-13208425.html

Las reducciones de impuestos no crean trabajos.

Any evidence that tax cuts create jobs? No? Didn't think so. Sure, people SAY tax cuts will create jobs, but when it comes time to put up or shut up, out comes the waterworks about "job killers" and "liberal bias", always. You could not get any more clear than this.

[Historic NY]

1. The rich aren't even hiring servants any more.

[SpiralHawk]

2. "Fuck the jobs thingy. More More More for rich republicons." - Rush DraftDodger Limbaugh (R)

"More more more more more more more tax cuts for us. More more more more more more more more MORE - damn it - MORE for rich republicons. Oinks. MegaOinks. GigaOinks."

- Rush DraftDodger Limbaugh (R)

[rrneck]

3. Of course tax cuts create jobs.

Service jobs. They turn us all into servants in a service economy whose sole purpose is to see to it that anybody with a little more money than us is treated like a king. Until the middle class completely disappears, then we actually will have royalty to cater to.

[ThomThom]

14. no they don't ...people with hired help don't hire more help

they have all the people they need. The money that they don't have to pay in taxes goes straight into the stock market to make more money. Not one job was ever created by giving more money to rich people. The best incentive is to force them to leave it in business instead of taking it out which is achieved by a high tax rate. We need to roll back the Reagan tax cuts also.

[Lasher]

4. Trickle-Down Economics: Four Reasons Why It Just Doesn't Work

We've all heard the claims that cutting tax rates for the richest Americans will improve the standard of living for the working class. Supposedly, top-bracket tax breaks will result in more jobs being created, higher wages for the average worker, and an overall upturn in our economy. It's at the heart of the infamous trickle-down theory.

The past 40 years have seen a gradual decrease in the top bracket's income tax rate, from 91% in 1963 to 35% in 2003. It went as low as 28% in 1988 and 1989 due to legislation passed under Reagan, the trickle-down theory's most famous adherent. The Clinton years saw the top bracket hold steady at a higher rate of 39.6%, but under the younger Bush's tax-cut policies, the rich are once again paying less. The drastic change in tax policy that has taken place since the early 1960s gives us a great opportunity to study and evaluate the claims that lower taxes for the rich translate to more wealth for the average American.

http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html

Do Tax Cuts for the Wealthy Stimulate Employment?

Economists from both sides of the political aisle argued from the beginning that tax cuts for the wealthy made no sense as a policy for stimulating new jobs. And experience has proved them right. Total private employment was actually lower in January 2005 than in January 2001, the first time since the Great Depression that employment has fallen during a president's term of office.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=389&topic_id=8812078&mesg_id=8812078

Economists Disagree With Bush On Relationship Between Massive Tax Cuts And ... Cuts In Deficit, Economic Growth ...

President Bush and Republicans up for re-election have been touting lower-than-expected deficit projections, claiming that this is proof that Bush's massive tax cuts are successfully stimulating the economy.

But economists disagree. And not economists from some liberal think tank, but from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

An analysis of Treasury data prepared last month by the Congressional Research Service estimates that economic growth fueled by the cuts is likely to generate revenue worth about 7 percent of the total cost of the cuts.

"Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that," Alan Viard, a former Bush White House economist now at the nonpartisan American Enterprise Institute, told the Washington Post.

http://jabbs.blogspot.com/2006/10/economists-disagree-with-bush-on.html

[izquierdista]

7. Economists don't disagree

Even though their science is only in its infancy, most rational, deductive and empirical economists agree on some basic cause&effect explanations. The problem comes in lumping supply-siders, Friedmanists, and free-marketeers in with them and listening to their opinion as if it had a rational basis in fact or observation. That group is to economics as astrologers and dowsers are to physics -- frauds.

The reason that unscientific witchcraft is still common in economics is because those incantations and spells are very convenient at serving the desires of the wealthy. Just as the Church had their own cosmology that kept Galileo's observed facts at bay, the wealthy business interests have their own economic view that has no place for real data. The history of the Nobel prize in economics is a useful example of this. Alfred Nobel did not include economics in his bequest; it was piggybacked on in 1969 to give the imprimatur of respectability to some bankers' pet ideas. At times they have tried to act like the Nobel Prize committee and select recipients who did legitimate research into economics, but other times they throw it to a voodoo wizard like Milton Friedman, in spite of the ruined economies that are testament to his failure.

Economics is like physics in the days of the aether and phlogiston -- any bullshit artist can put forward ideas, but the scientists who really understand and can make verifiable predictions are few and far between. They would do well to purge their ranks of the scammers, even if the scammers are the ones who attract the most funding (from their wealthy business interest patrons).

[Lasher]

11. All econimists haven't agreed, but some from both sides of the aisle did about the Bush tax cuts.

Even Paul Laffer, of supply side thesis-on-a-napkin fame, said the Bush tax cuts were a bad idea.

[racaulk]

5. K&R!!!

:applause:

[stray cat]

6. Agreed - but neither does marching or complaining

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

8. K & R

[blaze]

9. K&R!

[The_Commonist]

10. Tax cuts do not create jobs.

I know a few people who actually believe they do.
You would laugh at some of the other stuff they believe...

[Arkana]

12. What the..SPANISH?

Let's see yer birth certificate, SENOR!

[AnArmyVeteran]

13. K&R. 25% of economy is the financial sector & they produce NOTHING!

We need to not only eliminate the bu$h tax cuts, we must RAISE the tax rate on the richest 5% to at least 60%. Does anyone really believe the rich lose sleep at night worrying about how to hire more Americans or building new businesses in the US? They do the opposite by firing American workers and moving their businesses to other countries to use slave labor. People who make over 10 million should be taxed at a 90% rate like they were 50 years ago, and that was a time when we had the biggest growth of the middle class and the economy was firing on all cylinders. I'm sick of the rich making money by just parking their fortunes which helps no one but themselves.

[Curmudgeoness]

15. Duh. We have all the evidence we need right here, right now.

Tax cuts in place, a "recession" with a "jobless recovery"----all at the same time. How can you argue against what we see happening?

[never cry wolf]

16. I am not an economist, but was a former business owner

I am an architect, I used to run my own small firm, at one point we employed seven professionals and a secretary. We did well but I did not hire because we had a good year, I hired when we needed help to meet the work load... If the demand was there, I looked to supply it. It does not work the other way around, that IS vodoo econmics...

on a side note, I lost my business in 2007 when people stopped building in the industrial market... Took a job with a firm doing commercial, that died in 2008.... Been unemployed for 16 months now, home is in foreclosure...

It is NOT supply and demand, it IS Demand and supply... demand creates jobs, NOT tax cuts for the rich!

[smalll]

17. Well, they did in Rhode Island. John Kerry now docks his boat there just because of it.

From GDP -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x386981

:shrug:

[Bennyboy]

18. Kay and RRRRRRRRRRRR'd.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. I'd like to be technical about this

aka at the policy level (why? I am a glutton for punishment)

Taxes on Marginal Rates... these are the taxes on income derived form Stocks don't create jobs. And here is the reason why. Let's assume for a second that any of you has 10K in income this year from investments. You will be taxed at a 15% rate on these. Now compare that to other income, where you will be taxed at 35%... do riddle me this? Why should you move those 10K in income to something that will be taxed at a higher rate?

Now tax cuts on the population segment that will spend the money... aka you and me, who did get a tax cut this year... means that the money GOES into the economy, creating demand and indirectly leading to jobs by creating demand.

Why do I want to go into this policy difference?

Mostly history...

When the marginal rate has been at this level, we have had small matters like on the crash. Why? It leads to speculation, to ahem, maximize profits. When those MARGINAL tax rates go up... not just by 1% but let's say oh 70% (Kennedy) then it makes sense to move that money where it will be taxed lower. And that is... into the business, where it injects money and at that point does lead to jobs. See the 1950s, 90%, the 1960s, 70%.

So if I want to create jobs and revive that economy, I would tax marginal rates at 70%, and lower MC taxes, temporarily, if need be, due to the long term deficit, to 25%. That way I put money into the hands of people who will spend it, and will force those who otherwise would park it in investments, to invest in jobs.

Of course at the policy level I also need an industrial policy and to change our trade policies to encourage those jobs to come back, as well as get EFCA passed...

But I fear at this point I am dreaming the policy dream.