Have tax cuts produced jobs?

[Guns Guns Guns]

​

Well, have they?


It seems that the Republicans think cutting programs they don't like and giving the rich more tax cuts will result in job creation.


How'd that "plan" work so far?


The economy boasted 132 million jobs in June of 2001, the month that the first of the Bush tax cuts was signed into law.

Three years later, in June of 2004, there were just 131.4 million jobs.

• The economy did not add a single new job during three years under the Bush tax cuts.

The next three years were better than the first three as the private sector struggled back to its feet following the first Bush recession.

By June of 2007, before the start of the Great Recession, total jobs had grown to 137.7 million.

Overall, the six years following the Bush tax cuts saw a 4.8 percent increase in jobs.

That’s not nothing, but it’s pretty anemic compared to job growth under President Clinton.

Clinton, after raising taxes in 1993, oversaw an economy that went from 111 million jobs in August of that year (the month Clinton’s budget plan passed, including the increase in taxes) to 129 million jobs six years later—an increase of 16.2 percent, and more than three times better than under the Bush tax cuts.”



So, can anyone show how more of the same policies will create the jobs America needs - jobs that were lost after the tax cuts were enacted?



http://www.responsibletaxes.org/resources/killer-facts-on-failure-of-bush-economic-policies/

 

[Rune]

Conservatards? Nothing?
Even a liar like PiMP stays away from this.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

​

Well, have they?

YES!


It seems that the Republicans think cutting programs they don't like and giving the rich more tax cuts will result in job creation.


How'd that "plan" work so far?


The economy boasted 132 million jobs in June of 2001, the month that the first of the Bush tax cuts was signed into law.

Three years later, in June of 2004, there were just 131.4 million jobs.

• The economy did not add a single new job during three years under the Bush tax cuts.

The next three years were better than the first three as the private sector struggled back to its feet following the first Bush recession.

By June of 2007, before the start of the Great Recession, total jobs had grown to 137.7 million.

Overall, the six years following the Bush tax cuts saw a 4.8 percent increase in jobs.

That’s not nothing, but it’s pretty anemic compared to job growth under President Clinton.

Clinton, after raising taxes in 1993, oversaw an economy that went from 111 million jobs in August of that year (the month Clinton’s budget plan passed, including the increase in taxes) to 129 million jobs six years later—an increase of 16.2 percent, and more than three times better than under the Bush tax cuts.”



So, can anyone show how more of the same policies will create the jobs America needs - jobs that were lost after the tax cuts were enacted?



http://www.responsibletaxes.org/resources/killer-facts-on-failure-of-bush-economic-policies/

It is hard to imagine how could have produced a more misleading post. It is filled with half truths and missing data points. I mean it is all right here for you to look at. How can you be so dishonest?

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
Yes, taxes were lowered in June of 2001, but it is difficult to assess their immediate impact because as you are aware but probably forgot to mention a couple of facts:

1) We were in the midst of the DOT com bust which started officially in March 2000 and was in full steam by June of 2001.
2) a little event occurred on September 11th, 2001 that had tremendous impacts on the economy.
3) The financial collapse that occurred in September 2008 led to huge job losses and had nothing to do with tax policy.

This chart shows that in June of 2001 the unemployment rate was 4.5%. But, you can also see that in December 2000 the unemployment rate was 3.9% and was steadily rising through 2001 due to the DOT com bust. In September 2001 after the 9/11 terrorist attacks the unemployment rate really kicked in due to fear of more terrorist attacks and stayed in the 5s throughout most of 2002 hitting over 6% in 2003. On May 23, 2003 Congress passed another tax cut. We can see that in May 2003 the unemployment rate was 6.1%. It peaked at 6.3% and then steadily declined through November of 2007 where it hit 4.7%.


So now that I thoroughly dismantled your mistruths about the Bush record, let me turn to the Clinton record.

When Bubba was inaugurated, unemployment was at 7.3%. He passed his tax increase plan on May 14, 1993. Through 1994, 1995 and 1996 unemployment averaged 6.1, 5.6 and 5.4 respectively. Not too shabby, but nothing to write home about. It comes out to 5.7% over those first three years. Bush, over the same time frame of his Presidency averaged 4.7, 5.8 and 6.0 respectively. Which comes out to 5.5% for the three years. Using your logic, Bush did better than Clinton in his first three years after his major tax policy than Clinton.

Now let's move on to the latter part of the Clinton Presidency which you and many libs like you so conveniently want to forget. On August 5, 1997 Billy Clinton signed a tax CUT into law lowering capital gains and other taxes on THE EVIL RICH. Yes, I bet you didn't know that if all you do is watch PMSNBC. But, Billy "the raper" Clinton signed tax cuts into law. He reduced capital gains from 28% to 20%. Look it up. Now, what was the unemployment rate in September 1997? It was 4.9%. 1997 through March 2000 we saw a huge economic expansion due to the unleashing power of the tax cuts. In fact from September to December 2000 the unemployment rate was at 3.9% for all three months. Bear in mind that historically most economists have considered the country to be at full employment at 5% unemployment. So yes, the Clinton record is good, but you must put it in context. The first part of his Presidency after the tax increases you love to tout so much were average at best. It was only after the tax cuts that the economy really took off.

I will be magnanimous and assume that your omission of these relevant historical facts was due to ignorance and not an attempt to mislead. Only a complete moron would think that tax policy in and of itself determines the unemployment rate. To just look at the tax policies without looking at prevailing circumstances is ignorance in the extreme.

Lastly, I have never understood the terminology liberals use when it comes to tax policy. You say things like "give tax cuts". What is the gobblement "GIVING" me when there is a tax cut? They are taking less. The only way you can consider that they are giving someone something is if you believe that the gobblement OWNS the resources and not you. Is that what you believe? Lastly, is there a tax rate that would make you say ENOUGH? If so, what is it? Or could the gobblement tax 100% of your income and you would be OK with it.

The lessons are free, what you choose to do with them are up to you.

 

[Rune]

It is hard to imagine how could have produced a more misleading post. It is filled with half truths and missing data points. I mean it is all right here for you to look at. How can you be so dishonest?

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
Yes, taxes were lowered in June of 2001, but it is difficult to assess their immediate impact because as you are aware but probably forgot to mention a couple of facts:

1) We were in the midst of the DOT com bust which started officially in March 2000 and was in full steam by June of 2001.
2) a little event occurred on September 11th, 2001 that had tremendous impacts on the economy.
3) The financial collapse that occurred in September 2008 led to huge job losses and had nothing to do with tax policy.

This chart shows that in June of 2001 the unemployment rate was 4.5%. But, you can also see that in December 2000 the unemployment rate was 3.9% and was steadily rising through 2001 due to the DOT com bust. In September 2001 after the 9/11 terrorist attacks the unemployment rate really kicked in due to fear of more terrorist attacks and stayed in the 5s throughout most of 2002 hitting over 6% in 2003. On May 23, 2003 Congress passed another tax cut. We can see that in May 2003 the unemployment rate was 6.1%. It peaked at 6.3% and then steadily declined through November of 2007 where it hit 4.7%.


So now that I thoroughly dismantled your mistruths about the Bush record, let me turn to the Clinton record.

When Bubba was inaugurated, unemployment was at 7.3%. He passed his tax increase plan on May 14, 1993. Through 1994, 1995 and 1996 unemployment averaged 6.1, 5.6 and 5.4 respectively. Not too shabby, but nothing to write home about. It comes out to 5.7% over those first three years. Bush, over the same time frame of his Presidency averaged 4.7, 5.8 and 6.0 respectively. Which comes out to 5.5% for the three years. Using your logic, Bush did better than Clinton in his first three years after his major tax policy than Clinton.

Now let's move on to the latter part of the Clinton Presidency which you and many libs like you so conveniently want to forget. On August 5, 1997 Billy Clinton signed a tax CUT into law lowering capital gains and other taxes on THE EVIL RICH. Yes, I bet you didn't know that if all you do is watch PMSNBC. But, Billy "the raper" Clinton signed tax cuts into law. He reduced capital gains from 28% to 20%. Look it up. Now, what was the unemployment rate in September 1997? It was 4.9%. 1997 through March 2000 we saw a huge economic expansion due to the unleashing power of the tax cuts. In fact from September to December 2000 the unemployment rate was at 3.9% for all three months. Bear in mind that historically most economists have considered the country to be at full employment at 5% unemployment. So yes, the Clinton record is good, but you must put it in context. The first part of his Presidency after the tax increases you love to tout so much were average at best. It was only after the tax cuts that the economy really took off.

I will be magnanimous and assume that your omission of these relevant historical facts was due to ignorance and not an attempt to mislead. Only a complete moron would think that tax policy in and of itself determines the unemployment rate. To just look at the tax policies without looking at prevailing circumstances is ignorance in the extreme.

Lastly, I have never understood the terminology liberals use when it comes to tax policy. You say things like "give tax cuts". What is the gobblement "GIVING" me when there is a tax cut? They are taking less. The only way you can consider that they are giving someone something is if you believe that the gobblement OWNS the resources and not you. Is that what you believe? Lastly, is there a tax rate that would make you say ENOUGH? If so, what is it? Or could the gobblement tax 100% of your income and you would be OK with it.

The lessons are free, what you choose to do with them are up to you.

Wow, amazingly well written for a moron! Did your mom write that for you?

Too bad in all that verbiage you have no valid point whatsoever.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

The growth in jobs following the Bush tax cuts remains surprisingly small in comparison to the job growth achieved by two-term presidents without the benefit of the mega-tax cuts for the wealthiest among us as delivered by President Bush.



The Reagan years produced double-digit job growth.



Same goes for the Clinton era, the 8 years of the combined Nixon and Ford administrations, and the 8 years of the combined Lyndon Johnson and John F. Kennedy terms (both Ford and Johnson finished the terms of their predecessors.)




Given that all of these two-term presidents experienced better job growth without the assistance of the massive tax cuts for the wealthy provided by President George W. Bush, it certainly seems fair to note that a certain amount of job growth would have come during the years George W. was president—whether he had given us the tax cuts or not.




If one feels the need to argue that tax cuts are the great driver of employment, the comparative numbers make it shockingly clear that these tax benefits to the wealthy do little to nothing to even keep up with the employment increases under all of the other two term presidents of the modern era...



The GOP meme suggesting that tax cuts equals jobs while, conversely, tax increases on the so-called “job creators” mean less work for the rest of us, simply does not survive any reasonable scrutiny.



Putting more money in the pockets of the wealthy may create a few jobs for the foreign bankers who get to count the extra money funneled into into the off-shore accounts of the rich, but there is nothing in the way of actual data to support the notion that putting more money into the pockets of the wealthiest Americans will inure to the benefit of those looking for work.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/07/17/the-truth-about-the-bush-tax-cuts-and-job-growth/2/

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Wow, amazingly well written for a moron! Did your mom write that for you?

My mother passed away 11 years ago

Too bad in all that verbiage you have no valid point whatsoever.

The point is crystal clear to anyone with a brain. The OP was trying to draw straight lines to support his ideological aims and was leaving out major parts of the story. Either the OP is woefully ignorant of the facts or the OP was deliberately trying to mislead. Either way, I felt it incumbent upon myself to correct the record. The debate over tax cuts in my view is centered on a bogus argument and that is about "jobs". People make the arguments on both sides as if there is some sort of direct correlation. Well, in economics, as in life it is rarely that simple.

At the end of the day, we should be talking about prosperity for all, not just JOBS. I know it is a great sound bite to talk about JOBS when the unemployment rate is this high, but both parties miss the mark. They should be talking about prosperity and individual liberty. Low tax rates lead to increased prosperity and economic growth. This economic growth should lead to increased jobs. Higher taxes retard economic growth as do other facts such as regulation and increased expenses. There is only one reason a person starts a business and that is to make PROFIT. It isn't to create jobs. That is an outgrowth. This argument that the gobblement can't create jobs is a dubious. Of course it can create jobs. It could hire 23 million people to dig ditches tomorrow and call them jobs. But, the gobblement can't create prosperity. It can't create REAL sustained economic growth. It can boost the economy through artificial means, but as we have seen the past four years that just isn't working.


So, I am sorry that your economic education has been so poor that you don't understand what I am talking about. Next time I will try to dumb it down so you can understand. Toodles Prune

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Are you claiming that multimillionaire Mittzie didn't say tax cuts will create jobs?

 

[signalmankenneth]

Tax Cuts are 30% of our Deficit?!!

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Are you claiming that multimillionaire Mittzie didn't say tax cuts will create jobs?

This isn't about what Romney is claiming or not claiming. This is about your false and misleading OP.

 

[zappasguitar]

This isn't about what Romney is claiming or not claiming. This is about your false and misleading OP.

Ahh, but as the Republican nominee for President, it IS about what Romney is claiming.

 

[Rune]

The point is crystal clear to anyone with a brain. The OP was trying to draw straight lines to support his ideological aims and was leaving out major parts of the story. Either the OP is woefully ignorant of the facts or the OP was deliberately trying to mislead. Either way, I felt it incumbent upon myself to correct the record. The debate over tax cuts in my view is centered on a bogus argument and that is about "jobs". People make the arguments on both sides as if there is some sort of direct correlation. Well, in economics, as in life it is rarely that simple.

At the end of the day, we should be talking about prosperity for all, not just JOBS. I know it is a great sound bite to talk about JOBS when the unemployment rate is this high, but both parties miss the mark. They should be talking about prosperity and individual liberty. Low tax rates lead to increased prosperity and economic growth. This economic growth should lead to increased jobs. Higher taxes retard economic growth as do other facts such as regulation and increased expenses. There is only one reason a person starts a business and that is to make PROFIT. It isn't to create jobs. That is an outgrowth. This argument that the gobblement can't create jobs is a dubious. Of course it can create jobs. It could hire 23 million people to dig ditches tomorrow and call them jobs. But, the gobblement can't create prosperity. It can't create REAL sustained economic growth. It can boost the economy through artificial means, but as we have seen the past four years that just isn't working.


So, I am sorry that your economic education has been so poor that you don't understand what I am talking about. Next time I will try to dumb it down so you can understand. Toodles Prune

Bottom line is; Tax cuts we couldn't afford didn't create jobs we needed, but did enlarge the deficit to the point that it is now a tremendous burden.
How do you plead?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

This isn't about what Romney is claiming or not claiming. This is about your false and misleading OP.

I've posted proof that the Bush tax cuts that Obama foolishly extended produced the slowest job growth in decades.

Yet the GOP candidate says he will create more jobs than Obama using more tax cuts?

 

[wiseones2cents]

Bottom line is; Tax cuts we couldn't afford didn't create jobs we needed, but did enlarge the deficit to the point that it is now a tremendous burden.
How do you plead?

You are 1/2 correct.

At a time of growth, it can be done(if the investors are willing). Though at a time the market is saturated? Absolutely not. It's all pocketed profit. The only things the tax exemptions(of big corporations) are being used for today is to export America's wealth. And tax payers are subsidizing it!