I listen to to those advocating lower taxes for the purpose of jobs creation. One can argue that lower corporate taxes can create more jobs or that this policy would just create more wealth for those who are already wealthy. But how do lower personal taxes affect job growth?
I decided to analyze some statistics of George W. Bush's Presidency.
1. Jobs created during George W. Bush' term of office.
The table below from WSJBlog compares job growth during the presidencies of our last five Presidents. One can easily see from this table that not that many jobs were created during the G.W. Bush years.
2. Tax cuts during George W. Bush's Presidency.
"During his first term (2001–2005), he sought and obtained Congressional approval for tax cuts: the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. These acts decreased all tax rates, reduced the capital gains tax, increased the child tax credit and eliminated the so-called "marriage penalty", and are set to expire in 2011."
The question – do tax cuts help job creation?
I add one more pertinent statistic
3. Corporations cash on hand.
From the WSJ: “Rather than pouring their money into building plants or hiring workers, non-financial companies in the U.S. were sitting on $1.93 trillion in cash and other liquid assets at the end of September, 2010 up from $1.8 trillion at the end of June, 2010 the Federal Reserve said Thursday. Cash accounted for 7.4% of the companies' total assets — the largest share since 1959.”
Why are we trying to cut more taxes? Why are we trying to do the same ineffectual thing again and again?
Republicans continually state that cutting taxes will create more jobs, and more jobs will bring more dollars into government coffers. But recent history says tax cuts do not create jobs, and thus we will not get more monies into our government's treasury.
Wouldn't it be better to raise personal taxes on those making $250,000.00 (taxable income) and invest this revenue on the education and specializatiom of our workers so that they may fill those jobs that clearly require technical education, knowledge and training ? If we did this, then we would have additional dollars coming to the Government coffers.
On April 20th I was listening to Wisconsin Public Radio (Governor Walker has not yet gotten around to scrambling both its signal and funding). WPR reported that the Governor was in Pulaski, WI awarding a potential $2,000,000 grant to Marquis Yachts, a luxury boat builder.
If the plant hires a minimum of 379 workers, it would fulfill the requirement and qualify to receive the maximum grant. After listening to that news blurb I thought: Good thing to hire workers who will make over $16 per hour. Wait a minute, this company makes YACHTS.
Googling "Marquis Yachts Prices" I soon learned that these playthings start around $600,000, and the really nice ones go for a little under $2,000,000, equaling the amount of the maximum grant. What a wacko world we live in. We are fighting unemployment by funding $16.00 an hour jobs to produce super gas guzzling toys for the super rich. What a perfect example of trickledown economics! Needless to say, this liberal was a bit frustrated.
Then I went to:
I learned this grant would not be used for building luxury yachts. Evidently, due to the soaring price of gas, or the release of Wii yachting simulations the demand for 72 foot yachts has somewhat diminished. No, this grant would be used for "small portable offices." Now, that sounded more reasonable. But as I read on, I was again thrown into a moral morass when I discovered the portable offices were to be used as portable recruiting stations for the National Guard. I have nothing against the National Guard. Until Bush's war in Iraq, the National Guard was mainly used to help victims during natural disasters and sometimes quell civilian unrest. Then I thought of the union protests in Madison. Nah, even Governor Walker couldn't be that conspiratorial. Could he?