Regardless, lowering taxes by X% will make additional money available to a given firm. And there are countless firms that have positive net income that are not hiring (or actually downsizing) because of their diminished revenue–they are teetering in a bleak market. If you’re assuming that firms not hiring or downsizing are firms who by definition would not benefit from a tax cut, that’s just wrong.
This may be a hijack, but it feels relevant to the arguement at hand, and since I lean toward silly knee jerk liberal who think with their heart, feels is good enough.
There is an entire family of tools we can consider “hammer” including the Jack, the Sledge, the Ball-peen, The Tack, the Pein, the Club, and a large subset of mallets. Do not consider this list exhaustive The percentage of these whose purpose it driving nails is small.
The problem with arguing from platitude is it is often easy to turn it around. You are trying to make a point that people with perception bias pigeonhole, they reduce a varied and diverse range of concepts into single, simple, stereotypes, however your metaphoric argument blatantly displays the same. Personally, If I were a hammer, I’d see everything as unbroken concrete.
Jack
That’s one of the most over-reaching, unprovable, slanderous, ill-considered things I think I’ve ever seen on this board. It reminds me why I stay out of the Pit.
I’m not a corporation.
Which is why your claims for the jobs you would create with a tax cut are meaningless.
Tax cuts are a piss-poor way to reduce the national rate of unemployment, because the corporations in a position to create a meaningful number of jobs don’t do so as a result of increased capital, they do it because demand for their products increases.
I may not have followed every post in this exchange, so forgive me if I miss the point entirely.
That being said, tax cuts do increase jobs. Why’s that? Because tax cuts increase investment. Why’s that? Because tax cuts increase the projected return from the venture by decreasing the projected expenses. So, it makes investments that weren’t worth it before now worth it. And when I say “investments,” I don’t mean just people that buy stocks and bonds, but people that build power plants and windfarms (both of which create jobs).
Yes. But marginally. If your child has an ear infection, she might well benefit from a healthy increase in vitamin C. But if you want to go nuclear on the nasty little bio-bots, you reach for the Pink Glop (ampicillin).
Tax cuts encourage the advantaged to save more money, which might well be invested. But what we need here is for people to *spend *money. Worry about wasting water once the fire is out.