<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Do Tax Cuts Really Create Jobs?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://joshbuckner.com/2009/do-tax-cuts-really-create-jobs/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://joshbuckner.com/2009/do-tax-cuts-really-create-jobs/</link>
	<description>Personal thoughts and ideas</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Apr 2011 17:01:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: steve allen</title>
		<link>http://joshbuckner.com/2009/do-tax-cuts-really-create-jobs/comment-page-1/#comment-49</link>
		<dc:creator>steve allen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Dec 2010 22:34:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://joshbuckner.com/?p=20#comment-49</guid>
		<description>Tax cuts for the wealthiest does not mean additional consumption. They already have sufficient income to consume as they see fit. And I&#039;d generalize further by saying that they did not become that wealthy by going out and buying for buying&#039;s sake. You want to increase demand and increase consumption by the vast majority of folks you target your incentives toward them, including an extension of unemployment insurance benefits. Then, as a writer stated above, change the tax code in order to have companies keep their manufacturing ops here in US. Do something about NAFTA, etc., and create import duties in order to protect American companies and their employees.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tax cuts for the wealthiest does not mean additional consumption. They already have sufficient income to consume as they see fit. And I&#8217;d generalize further by saying that they did not become that wealthy by going out and buying for buying&#8217;s sake. You want to increase demand and increase consumption by the vast majority of folks you target your incentives toward them, including an extension of unemployment insurance benefits. Then, as a writer stated above, change the tax code in order to have companies keep their manufacturing ops here in US. Do something about NAFTA, etc., and create import duties in order to protect American companies and their employees.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Framed Again? &#171; Politi-Psychotics</title>
		<link>http://joshbuckner.com/2009/do-tax-cuts-really-create-jobs/comment-page-1/#comment-47</link>
		<dc:creator>Framed Again? &#171; Politi-Psychotics</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 16:42:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://joshbuckner.com/?p=20#comment-47</guid>
		<description>[...] an excellent take on “tax cuts creating [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] an excellent take on “tax cuts creating [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James</title>
		<link>http://joshbuckner.com/2009/do-tax-cuts-really-create-jobs/comment-page-1/#comment-46</link>
		<dc:creator>James</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Aug 2010 19:44:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://joshbuckner.com/?p=20#comment-46</guid>
		<description>And this is why the MIDDLE and LOWER classes need tax cuts like there is no tomorrow -- and why BIG BUSINESS needs to get sacked with HUGE tax increases.

We need to start actively DISCOURAGING major corporations from moving their operations to other countries. We could do this by slapping them with HUGE penalities for, say, moving their factories to China, while offering major concessions if they hire people here at home.

We need to start FORCING them to play by OUR rules. We have been far to kind to the CEOs and major stockholders here in the United States. If you are such a person and are reading this message, you had better get ready -- because we are coming for your WEALTH.

Wealth is BAD. Wealth is EVIL. GREED IS WRONG, and should be actively PUNISHED.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And this is why the MIDDLE and LOWER classes need tax cuts like there is no tomorrow &#8212; and why BIG BUSINESS needs to get sacked with HUGE tax increases.</p>
<p>We need to start actively DISCOURAGING major corporations from moving their operations to other countries. We could do this by slapping them with HUGE penalities for, say, moving their factories to China, while offering major concessions if they hire people here at home.</p>
<p>We need to start FORCING them to play by OUR rules. We have been far to kind to the CEOs and major stockholders here in the United States. If you are such a person and are reading this message, you had better get ready &#8212; because we are coming for your WEALTH.</p>
<p>Wealth is BAD. Wealth is EVIL. GREED IS WRONG, and should be actively PUNISHED.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: R.C.</title>
		<link>http://joshbuckner.com/2009/do-tax-cuts-really-create-jobs/comment-page-1/#comment-40</link>
		<dc:creator>R.C.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Apr 2010 19:40:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://joshbuckner.com/?p=20#comment-40</guid>
		<description>A very well thought out and succinct argument with sound reasoning.

It&#039;s important to analyze the assumption put forth above - that less taxes means consumers will spend more. That effect would, at most, also be very limited - some jobs would be created, but not to the extent that supporters of tax cuts might claim:

1) There&#039;s the time factor. Even if consumer demand directly and significantly increased as a result of having more spending money (which is not guaranteed to begin with), it would still take time for the market to respond to that demand. Hiring people doesn&#039;t happen over night - you have to advertise and look for prospectives, interview them, check their credentials, train them, and incorporate them into your work force. That&#039;s a lot of time and work that may not necessarily be equal in value to the amount of additional money businesses would have as a result of tax cuts. And even then, as it&#039;s already been said, if there is no extra demand, tax cuts don&#039;t mean that more workers will be hired. It depends on the conditions of the market.

2) Did we forget that a substantial portion of consumer products are made overseas now? So having more spending cash to buy products doesn&#039;t necessarily mean that the money will be used to hire more American workers.

3) When taxes do get cut, it&#039;s not important what the AVERAGE amount of money goes back to the tax payer, but the RANGE of amounts, as well as the MODE - i.e., what amounts were most frequently saved by people in the population because of tax cuts. True, if you make more money, you get taxed more, and so with tax cuts, you would get more money back. Well, exactly how much on average for people in the upper income brackets? And has anyone ever surveyed people in these tax brackets and asked what they may tend to do with the money they save from tax cuts? I agree that just having extra money doesn&#039;t mean that it will be spent or reinvested - it depends on the market conditions - that&#039;s managing your money smartly.

Also, again in terms of the range of money saved from tax cuts, what about for people in the middle and lower class? Taxes get cut, so depending on how much money they are saving, how likely are they to spend it if times are hard? If most tax payers are only getting an extra $300 or $600 from tax cuts, and the economy isn&#039;t doing too well, then I would think the wisest thing to do would be to save that money - in these hard times, I would.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A very well thought out and succinct argument with sound reasoning.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s important to analyze the assumption put forth above &#8211; that less taxes means consumers will spend more. That effect would, at most, also be very limited &#8211; some jobs would be created, but not to the extent that supporters of tax cuts might claim:</p>
<p>1) There&#8217;s the time factor. Even if consumer demand directly and significantly increased as a result of having more spending money (which is not guaranteed to begin with), it would still take time for the market to respond to that demand. Hiring people doesn&#8217;t happen over night &#8211; you have to advertise and look for prospectives, interview them, check their credentials, train them, and incorporate them into your work force. That&#8217;s a lot of time and work that may not necessarily be equal in value to the amount of additional money businesses would have as a result of tax cuts. And even then, as it&#8217;s already been said, if there is no extra demand, tax cuts don&#8217;t mean that more workers will be hired. It depends on the conditions of the market.</p>
<p>2) Did we forget that a substantial portion of consumer products are made overseas now? So having more spending cash to buy products doesn&#8217;t necessarily mean that the money will be used to hire more American workers.</p>
<p>3) When taxes do get cut, it&#8217;s not important what the AVERAGE amount of money goes back to the tax payer, but the RANGE of amounts, as well as the MODE &#8211; i.e., what amounts were most frequently saved by people in the population because of tax cuts. True, if you make more money, you get taxed more, and so with tax cuts, you would get more money back. Well, exactly how much on average for people in the upper income brackets? And has anyone ever surveyed people in these tax brackets and asked what they may tend to do with the money they save from tax cuts? I agree that just having extra money doesn&#8217;t mean that it will be spent or reinvested &#8211; it depends on the market conditions &#8211; that&#8217;s managing your money smartly.</p>
<p>Also, again in terms of the range of money saved from tax cuts, what about for people in the middle and lower class? Taxes get cut, so depending on how much money they are saving, how likely are they to spend it if times are hard? If most tax payers are only getting an extra $300 or $600 from tax cuts, and the economy isn&#8217;t doing too well, then I would think the wisest thing to do would be to save that money &#8211; in these hard times, I would.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: westy</title>
		<link>http://joshbuckner.com/2009/do-tax-cuts-really-create-jobs/comment-page-1/#comment-36</link>
		<dc:creator>westy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Feb 2010 00:22:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://joshbuckner.com/?p=20#comment-36</guid>
		<description>I have a small business and tax policy has virtually no affect on how I run it.  Whether or not I hire an employee is solely a function of the demand for my company&#039;s services.  If demand increases, I will hire so that I can increase production and generate more revenue.

If my taxes are cut and there is no extra demand, I wouldn&#039;t even consider hiring additional employees.  When I hear politicians say that tax cuts for biz = new jobs, I wonder if they are basing that on actual experience or if they are just mindlessly repeating some talking points.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have a small business and tax policy has virtually no affect on how I run it.  Whether or not I hire an employee is solely a function of the demand for my company&#8217;s services.  If demand increases, I will hire so that I can increase production and generate more revenue.</p>
<p>If my taxes are cut and there is no extra demand, I wouldn&#8217;t even consider hiring additional employees.  When I hear politicians say that tax cuts for biz = new jobs, I wonder if they are basing that on actual experience or if they are just mindlessly repeating some talking points.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ridgelon</title>
		<link>http://joshbuckner.com/2009/do-tax-cuts-really-create-jobs/comment-page-1/#comment-30</link>
		<dc:creator>Ridgelon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:48:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://joshbuckner.com/?p=20#comment-30</guid>
		<description>One thing you left out, an increase in income due to less taxes means consumers by more.  If they are buying more, you need more workers to sell products, so you have to hire people to meet the new demand.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One thing you left out, an increase in income due to less taxes means consumers by more.  If they are buying more, you need more workers to sell products, so you have to hire people to meet the new demand.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

