The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Freeper on July 12, 2011, 01:24:53 PM
-
No DUplicitous DUpe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Jul-12-11 02:13 PM
Original message
Do Tax Cuts Create Jobs?
Do Tax Cuts Create Jobs?
http://sane-ramblings.blogspot.com/2011/07/do-tax-cuts-...
Many Republicans insist tax cuts create jobs. But we've had those Bush tax cuts since 2001 and 2003. Where are those jobs?
It is true U.S. companies are creating jobs, in China, Mexico and in other low wage nations.* While extending those tax cuts, according to projections from the non-partisan Congressional Research Service show a 10 year revenue loss beyond 2010 of $2.9 trillion, with an additional $606 billion in interest charges, for a total of $3.5 trillion. And that's assuming interest charges don't skyrocket, which could happen as the U.S. sinks deeper into debt and investors get nervous. These are bills someone must pay!
My purpose is not to attack those who support huge tax breaks to create jobs but to encourage them to look at the results and recognize that after all these years, they don't bring jobs to America. Meanwhile, the American government is going broke.
*To learn more, please see "Despite Violence, U.S. firms Expand in Mexico." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/world/americas/11mata...
Refresh | +1 Recommendations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1473691
Of course we know the DU answer, tax increases create jobs.
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Jul-12-11 02:16 PM
Response to Original message
1. No. Absolutely not. Next question?
Also, getting rid of the minimum wage will not raise wages, making sex education illegal will not reduce teen pregnancy, ending affirmative action will not lift minorities out of poverty and saying tobacco is harmless will not make it so.
Raising the min wage will not make everyone rich, teaching kids how to put condoms on bananas does not reduce teen pregnancy, affirmative action has not lifted minorities out of poverty, and saying pot is harmless will not make it so.
Fixed it for you Taverner, you can thank me later.
-
Have any of the DUmmies tried to make the case that tax increases create jobs? I'd love to see some of that twisted logic.
-
Because job creation is a lot more complicated than just reducing taxes, it is not as simple as a lot of fiscal Conservatives want to make it appear. Other big factors depressing job creation are oppressive and omnipresent regulation, litigation risk (From labor cases to product liability to class action suits to the NLRB not liking your new factory location to...well, 'nuff said), the difficulty of borrowing money, and just plain uncertainty. Lowering taxes alone does not necessarily create jobs.
However, since none of those anti-job factors are going to change (At least not for the positive) under the Oministration, one thing is crystal clear: RAISING taxes will KILL jobs.
-
Have any of the DUmmies tried to make the case that tax increases create jobs? I'd love to see some of that twisted logic.
DUmmies don't really care about increasing jobs, they just want to make sure that the government has enough money to get them their "share."
-
Let me guess, even with an unemployment rate under 6% or better from 2003 to 2008, the 9+ % we see now is still BUSHES FAULT.
Got it. :whatever:
-
It looks to me as if a certain primitive was reading the DUmpster earlier today.
-
Have any of the DUmmies tried to make the case that tax increases create jobs? I'd love to see some of that twisted logic.
Actually they have, they claim that when the tax rate was 91% on the evil rich, jobs were plenty.
OwnedByFerrets (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr-02-09 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #18
49. I dont believe its EVER made sense to let the rich keep their money...
If they are taxed at a high rate, like 91% which is what it used to be, instead of hoarding all their money like they do now, they would instead invest it in their companies and in their work force. Its one of the things that grew the middle class in the 50s and early 60s.
"After the Republican Great Depression, FDR put this nation back to work, in part by raising taxes on income above $3 to $4 million a year (in today’s dollars) to 91 percent, and corporate taxes to over 50% of profits.
Every billion dollars (a half-week in Iraq) invested in infrastructure in America created 47,000 good-paying jobs as Americans built America.
Reagan promptly cut income taxes on the very rich from 70% down to 27%. Corporate tax rates were also cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983 (they’re still in that neighborhood, the lowest in the industrialized world).
Regan to cover his tax cuts doubled the tax paid only by people earning less than $40,000/year (FICA), and then began borrowing from the huge surplus this new tax was accumulating in the Social Security Trust Fund. Even with that, Reagan had to borrow more money in his 8 years than the sum total of all presidents from George Washington to Jimmy Carter combined. Reagan’s tax cut greatly diminished expenditures on infrastructure (bridges, roads, hospital, colleges, etc.)
When Reagan dropped the top income tax rate from over 70% down to under 30%, all hell broke loose. With the legal and social restraint to unlimited selfishness removed, “the good of the nation†was replaced by “greed is good†as the primary paradigm.
In the years since then, mind-boggling wealth has risen among fewer than 20,000 people in America (the top 0.01 percent of wage-earners), but their influence has been tremendous. They finance “conservative†think tanks (think Joseph Coors and the Heritage Foundation), change public opinion (Walton heirs funding a covert effort to change the “estate tax†to the “death taxâ€), lobby congress and the president (who calls the “haves and the have-more’s†his “baseâ€), and work to strip down public institutions.
The middle class is being replaced by the working poor. American infrastructure built with tax revenues during the 1934-1981 is now crumbling and disintegrating. Hospitals and highways and power and water systems have been corporatized. People are dying." Thom Hartmann
.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5373147&mesg_id=5375904
-
OwnedByFerrets (1000+ posts)
Thu Apr-02-09 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #18
49. I dont believe its EVER made sense to let the rich keep their money...
If they are taxed at a high rate, like 91% which is what it used to be, instead of hoarding all their money like they do now, they would instead invest it in their companies and in their work force. Its one of the things that grew the middle class in the 50s and early 60s.
Like I said above, twisted ****ing warped logic. And revisionist history too. If companies are taxed that heavily, they will NOT invest in their companies or hire more workers. More of their money is going to the government.
Economic geniuses... :mental:
-
Like I said above, twisted ****ing warped logic. And revisionist history too. If companies are taxed that heavily, they will NOT invest in their companies or hire more workers. More of their money is going to the government.
Economic geniuses... :mental:
What do you expect from a a bunch of losers who view being promoted to working the drive through window is a lifetime career goal.
-
pOwnedByFerrets (1000+ posts)
Thu Apr-02-09 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #18
49. I dont believe its EVER made sense to let the rich keep their money...
If they are taxed at a high rate, like 91% which is what it used to be, instead of hoarding all their money like they do now, they would instead invest it in their companies and in their work force. Its one of the things that grew the middle class in the 50s and early 60s.
Name change deemed required.
-
Name change deemed required.
:rofl:
Hi5 for making me chuckle out loud. :hi5: