The extension of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans is supposed to stimulate job growth, will it?
I don't know about stimulating job growth, but I do believe the unemployment rates will go up if the tax cuts are ended.
The people who will be hurt by ending these tax cuts aren't going to hire more people if the cuts continue, but if you take them away the results will be, I believe, devastating.
If you tax a business, they up their rates. If you tax fuel, the trucking companies charge more to bring in goods, which we pay more for at the store.
I believe that thinking "we'll tax the rich and that'll bring us more money" is naive. Profits will stay the same, everyone but the businesses and the extremely wealthy will lose.
Much of the problem with tax hikes on the wealthy is that this money is misused -- even squandered -- by special interests in Congress. If this "extra money" was used to pay down trillions of dollars of debt it might be justified. But that is seldom the case. And, it has been said, the job creators who are heavily taxed then make adjustments such as layoffs and hiring freezes.
This country needs to entrench and get back to its core values. These include manufacturing, research and development, and promoting small business startups.
Another problem is that most businesses plan ahead two years or more and base their internal expenses accordingly. So to "rethink" tax cuts in 2012 is meaningless as business still has no idea what the future holds.
too many people think that tax cuts for the wealthy are ok. it might create a few jobs but it also unfairly adds to their wealth while the little guy works harder to make up the need taxes. if the government really wanted to create jobs they would give tax breaks to new businesses and only let wealthy companies that share their profits with employees have tax cuts. 1% of the wealthy have 95% of the wealth and somehow these people need a tax cut. surely you jest.
No. In a global economy investors can place their money anywhere they like in the world. This means that they will invest their money where they can get the best return on it.
The Thatcher government: here in the UK, bamboozled the British electorate with precisely this ruse to further enrich people who were already rich - and impoverish the rest of us. They said tax cuts for the wealthy would lead to an 'entrepreneurial economy' that would create jobs. They were right - in a way. Jobs were created. In China.
Never trust the rich to do the decent thing. They don't care about the rest of us. It doesn't really matter - either - how much tax is levied upon them; whether its a small or large amount, they'll still try to avoid paying it by salting their ill gotten gains away in offshore investment trusts from where tax collection is impossible.
Question - do some Americans believe that defending the right of the rich to get richer: by shoving the tax burden onto the poor, will improve their chances of becoming rich?
The proof is in the past eight years these tax cuts have been in place. The money will continue to flow to the top and the top 2% will get richer while the rest of us look for jobs. If these tax cuts to the richest 2% created jobs, where are the jobs. The truth is that the top 2% give very large donations to political candidates and this is their payback. Look at the facts, don't listen to the BS.
Why not attach a provision that job creation be a measure of how much of a tax break they get.That would be the most logical approach ,if job creation is at the crux of those tax cuts.
We've had these tax rates for the past few years, has it stimulated job growth? No, it hasn't. Why would continuing down the exact same path create improved results. eculligan is just plain wrong, both in policy and history. Trickle down economics didn't work for a very simple reason that most economists now understand. The richer a person is, the lower the percentage of their income they will spend. A person earning $20,000 per year might spend 90% of their income on housing, car payments, food, and taxes. A person earning $2,000,000 typically does not spend 90% of their income, because $1,800,000 is a lot to spend in one year. A person can only enjoy so many houses and cars. The marginal tax rate for the highest bracket used to be over 90%. I'm not suggesting it should go that high, but even if we got it to the 50% rate that was in place during the early years of the Reagan administration it would be a huge step in the right direction.
I agree with D.B. Cooper: they've had these cuts for years and we've just slid farther down hill. I'd also add that the money we gave them thorough these cuts probably IS being invested in jobs - jobs in India, perhaps, not here.
It certainly will help especially in the small business sector in which more than 25% of all jobs are created (companies with less than 50 employees). The difference in taxes may be it possible for some of these companies to go ahead with hires they were otherwise holding back on. While the tax situation will help, ObamaCare still stands as a very large "what if" with small employers who have no real idea how this legislation is going to affect their business operation. With that question hanging over them, small business may continue to hold back in the job sector a bit longer until things become clear on healthcare. WB
I'm always suspicious of Republicans making claims about looking out for small businesses since the Bush administration and the 1996 Republican-controlled congress both tried to eliminate the Small Business Administration - the single largest source of loan guarantees to small businesses. I think they were just looking after their fat-cat cronies.
In my limited experience, I see wealthy business owners buying new cars with tax cuts, or buying real estate (here and abroad). These people don't really seem to stop and think, gee, I got a deal from the government, now I can hire more people and make this country a better place. Seemingly, they just think about how they can use it to get even MORE money, without regard for anyone else. So no, I don't believe those tax breaks for the wealthy will help at all.
by Stump Parrish 3 years ago
The tax cuts that are being debated in Washington have been described as a jobs creating nessessity by the republicans. These tax cuts have been in effect for 10 years now and I have to wonder where all the jobs they created during their existence, have gone. Are we to believe that they will...
by Holle Abee 8 years ago
Four Democrats and Lieberman voted with the Republicans. I have mixed feelings about this, according to the research I've done. It seems that "economy experts" are split on their views. Some argue that increasing taxes on the upper economic class will stifle jobs, while others say that...
by kerryg 8 years ago
Republicans have repeated the lie that tax cuts are always good for the economy so often that all of Washington seems absolutely convinced that it's true. The conventional wisdom is so established on this that all a Republican has to say is, "Everyone knows you don't raise taxes in the middle...
by Quilligrapher 6 years ago
From a CNN report GOP divide over Obama tax plan goes public, November 28, 2012:"A CNN/ORC International poll released Monday also showed that a solid majority of respondents -- two thirds -- supports the Democratic stance that any agreement should include a mix of spending cuts and tax...
by Holle Abee 8 years ago
On a previous thread, I expressed my confusion about the Bush tax rates. No one mentioned that Obama's own economic advisors told him that ending the Bush tax rates for the wealthy would be bad for the economy in the present recession. Shame on you!
by Nickny79 10 years ago
HIGH tax rates reduce economic growth, because they make it LESS profitable to work, save, and invest. This translates into less work, saving, investment, and capital--and ultimately fewer goods and services. Reducing marginal income tax rates has been shown to motivate people to work more. Lower...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|