Democrat senator says that unemployment benefits, not tax cuts, create jobs

[pocketfullofshells]

Unemployment benefits have been extended so that people are able to collect them for the longest amount of time ever.. (I think) Given that, if unemployment benefits are the job creation engine that he seems to be arguing they are, why are we not seeing a period of of equally as large job growth?

because its not enough, and its not a jobs program...I don't see unemployment bens as a way to increase jobs...but overall they should increase them a small amount...while large tax cuts for the Rich...cost alot more and do nominally different in results. Rich don't spend more because they got a tax cut, they already spend on what they want for things...if your making 500,000 a year, I don't think your sitting there debating hard about if you drive to the mall to pick up some stuff...because your not sure you can afford the gas to drive there in the first place...nor do you really need what you wanted to get? ...When you have no job, your spending all that money you get...you don't have much choice but to spend it.

who ever that other Sentor from AZ I believe , who is at least leaving office, was on the news saying spending does not drive our Econ...odd since its the only thing that drives it...

Realy is just very clear, from the Republicans

Spending for Tax cuts for money made over 250,000 is good ( they still would get the tax cut on first 250,000 regardless) and so good it does not have to be paid for

Unemployment, which has always been extended with Unemployment rates even 2 points lower then it is now...cost alot less, but must be paid for, and is only needed because they are all lazy....also they will not spend that money..

Its funny, the Right loves to yell class warfare...but they do it..they just back the wrong side of it.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

If your company is not making money, then you're not paying taxes, so tax cuts aren't going to have any effect at all.

If, on the other hand, your customers have some money in hand, whether it is from employment or unemployment, then you have a market and a chance to make a profit, on which you pay taxes to help pay for things like unemployment insurance.

If a corporation has a profit of a million dollars, for example, and if taxes on the profits are outrageous once the profit exceeds a quarter of a million, then why not use the extra $750 grand to hire more employees? Why not use the money to increase inventory or make capital gains improvements? Either way, the corporation will be creating jobs. If it keeps the profits, then a large chunk of it will go to pay taxes. ( sorry ment econ, must be a Freudian thing)

The idea that cutting taxes increases revenue is simply pie in the sky voodoo economics. There is no free lunch.

Well look how well the Bush tax cuts are doing.....man they got the con rolling!

 

[pocketfullofshells]

You may not be paying income tax, but if you have employees, you are paying taxes.



Sounds like a vicious cycle that ultimately could mean we print money into oblivion to help increase tax revenues to pay for people who are not working.



If a company makes a profit of a million dollars, and buys a million dollars worth of inventory, that would not make their tax bill $0.. am I wrong here?



There is a free lunch... it is called two years of unemployment benefits.

of course you paid into that unemployment....so thats not free...also even if it was, its not a free lunch most people want now is it?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

They need to be talking about both in my opinion.



Profits have not meant putting people back to work to date that I have seen.



Dividends are taxed twice. The company cannot pay out a dividend without first reporting that money as profit, and thereby paying tax on it. The person who gets the dividend then pays tax on it again.

In terms of the tax write offs, does it not depend on how a company is structured to look at the exact write offs they can take?



So it was unemployment benefits that prevented another depression? It seems like you are arguing that it is not "trickle-down" economics that works.. except when the trickle comes from the government...

I would be fine with tax cuts that specifically targeted hiring...but as said before, the Bush tax cuts that the Republicans want, for there personal income...over 250,000...( they still get tax cut on first 250,000 ) Many of these companies are sitting on piles of cash, they just will not spend it...why would anything well if you just give them more...they will this time, I swear!

 

[BigRob]

what else is going to put people back to work?

A sound tax code, and pro-business incentives.

Really? I didn't know that. It sounds like an unconstitutional double taxation to me, but I'm no tax accountant.

I hate it as well, but sadly that is how it is.

I'm sure it does. I'm equally sure that a retail establishment, for example, doesn't pay taxes on the money they use to purchase inventory for retail sales. If they did, their profit margin would have to be greater than the tax they pay, or they would go in the hole.

Good to know.

Trickle down' doesn't work. Percolate up works: If the average person has money, then business has a market, if not, then there is no market. Henry Ford understood that principle, and put it into practice.

If businesses have excess money, they can expand, which in turn can create more jobs. It is really the same theory ultimately, tax cuts that are not paid for are just deficit spending, as are "stimulus" checks etc... it is just the target that varies by party.

 

[BigRob]

Well look how well the Bush tax cuts are doing.....man they got the con rolling!

GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1 percent.

The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.

Non-residential fixed investment declined for 13 consecutive quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. Since then, it expanded for 13 consecutive quarters.

 

[BigRob]

of course you paid into that unemployment....so thats not free...also even if it was, its not a free lunch most people want now is it?

There are numerous studies that find extending unemployment prolongs the amount of time people will be unemployed... I will find some a post later on today or tomorrow.

 

[PLC1]

A sound tax code, and pro-business incentives.

which leads to profits, which makes it possible for businesses to hire, which increases employment and puts money in the pockets of average Americans, which makes for a good market, which increases profits, and round and round we go.

If the businesses pay a living wage to their employees, that is.

I hate it as well, but sadly that is how it is.

Maybe that is one problem that a pro business Congress could fix.

If businesses have excess money, they can expand, which in turn can create more jobs.

But, if those jobs don't pay a living wage, or if the jobs that would have been created are automated out of existence, or if the business does not expand but pays out the money in "bonuses", then the whole circle breaks down.

It is really the same theory ultimately, tax cuts that are not paid for are just deficit spending, as are "stimulus" checks etc... it is just the target that varies by party.

Correct. Tax cuts that aren't paid for are deficit spending, just like stimulus checks that aren't paid for.

The Democrats' answer is to tax the rich. The Republicans' answer is to cut taxes and just sit back and let the money roll in. Both are looking for that free lunch, neither facing reality.