Do corporate tax cuts create jobs?

[GGT]

Or do they lead to higher wages?

[GGT]

Also, is removing state deductions a good policy? I live in a high tax state, and rely on certain deductions. In fact, I'm considering leaving PA in my next property "choice".

[Lewkowski]

Also, is removing state deductions a good policy? I live in a high tax state, and rely on certain deductions. In fact, I'm considering leaving PA in my next property "choice".

Well generally speaking a state can get $1 of revenue but it costs the consumer less than a $1 to give it to the state creates poor incentives for properly managing money.

[GGT]

In other words, why would we need taxes in the first place if "free market" principles could do the job?

[Lewkowski]

In other words, why would we need taxes in the first place if "free market" principles could do the job?

No, no that is not 'in other words' at all.

[GGT]

Then answer the question. Do corporate tax cuts create jobs?

[RandBlade]

In other words, why would we need taxes in the first place if "free market" principles could do the job?

Because the two have completely different purposes.

Yes lower taxes means more jobs and higher wages etc

[Lewkowski]

Then answer the question. Do corporate tax cuts create jobs?

Potentially. If you cut taxes by .000001% I wouldn't think any jobs would get created. Depends on the amount and a ton of other factors. It also depends on if revenue is gathered elsewhere and how to offset potential job increases from lower corperate taxes.

[Dreadnaught]

Corporate tax cuts in isolation? No. But as part of a well-rounded tax policy, relatively lower corporate can spur more business investment and jobs. This was the core of Obama's 2012 corporate tax push, which was half-hearted but nonetheless focused on the corporate rate.

The state and local tax deduction is a massive distortion and should go, along with mortgage interest.

I think this tax debate would be so much more interesting if a new carbon tax was introduced. Though I have reservations about implementation, measurement and a potential regressive nature to it. Especially if it's a gateway to an unholy VAT.

[GGT]

Potentially. If you cut taxes by .000001% I wouldn't think any jobs would get created. Depends on the amount and a ton of other factors. It also depends on if revenue is gathered elsewhere and how to offset potential job increases from lower corperate taxes.

Corporate tax cuts in isolation? No. But as part of a well-rounded tax policy, relatively lower corporate can spur more business investment and jobs. This was the core of Obama's 2012 corporate tax push, which was half-hearted but nonetheless focused on the corporate rate.

Potentially and not in isolation? Yet, that's how the Republicans are selling it. Using a "trickle-down" economics theory which made sense for the industrial era, but doesn't take into account the tech/automation era (where profits can be made by reducing the human work force). Besides, we all know that most (ie the biggest) corporations don't pay the real corporate rate, and sometimes pay nothing or even a negative rate. And we also know those big corps have billions or trillions in cash....that won't necessarily translate into more US jobs, or even higher worker pay....but buying back stock shares and enriching stockholders.

For example, GE already pays a negative federal tax rate. I can't imagine how an even lower corporate tax rate would create *more* jobs for US workers. Sure, it might create *new* jobs, but if that means replacing ten workers with one robotic engineer, it's not much consolation to those nine workers looking for another job....

The state and local tax deduction is a massive distortion and should go, along with mortgage interest.

Good luck with that. I agree they're distortions, but don't forget that high-paying states give a LOT of revenue to national efforts that poorer low-paying states don't, even though those states with lower taxes use more federal dollars than they contribute. (For example, Texas, which needs FEMA every fucking year for floods, tornadoes, or hurricanes.)

And if you want to get rid of the home mortgage interest deduction, does that mean you want to get rid of business mortgage interest deductions, too? Again, good luck with that. That would mean fewer people take loans to buy homes or business properties. The banking industry wouldn't like that, and they have powerful lobbyists.

[GGT]

Still waiting for someone to justify Trickle Down Economics.....

[Lewkowski]

Still waiting for someone to justify Trickle Down Economics.....

A rising tide lifts all boats. The idea is if you lower the regulatory and tax burden, business will flourish. 401ks will improve. More jobs. More opportunity. Etc

I also find it troubling that you've bought into the silly 'oh noes robots!' With all of our automation we have today, we still have more people employed in the work force than we did 200 years ago. Old jobs do go away but new jobs get created. There are social media teams for big companies that spend their days interfacing with customers through things like FB and twitter. That type of job couldn't even have been imagined 50 years ago. At times you can really be a doom and gloom, throughout history (with some blips I'll admit) tomorrow has always been better than yesterday.

[Aimless]

*shrug* idea < evidence

[Aimless]

http://www.mauldineconomics.com/conn...fif_TE.twitter

The WSJ panel incident was interesting and illustrative. I suspect many legislators form their beliefs about what businesses want & how they'll behave based on interactions w/ a non-generalizable sample of businesses that actively lobby them like door-to-door salesmen. Great risk of bias.

[Lewkowski]

*shrug* idea < evidence

Principal > Evidence. I want the government to do less. I want the government to take less of a share of GDP. I want the government to take in less taxes. While I am concerned about the debt I'd rather starve the beast than continually punish success.

I do believe tax cuts will spur investment I don't think we're at the point on the Laffer curve where the increased tax revenue from economic growth will counter act the lost tax revenue but it doesn't need to be a 1:1 trade off for me to be OK with it. Eventually spending cuts is what is really needed.

[Aimless]

Principal > Evidence. I want the government to do less. I want the government to take less of a share of GDP. I want the government to take in less taxes. While I am concerned about the debt I'd rather starve the beast than continually punish success.

This is irrelevant to the subject of the post you were responding to.

[GGT]

Principal > Evidence. I want the government to do less. I want the government to take less of a share of GDP. I want the government to take in less taxes. While I am concerned about the debt I'd rather starve the beast than continually punish success.

Taxation doesn't necessarily mean "punishing success", ya know. But it IS the way governments fund public services. Things states can't afford on their own, like your own state of Texas paying to rebuild infrastructure after hurricanes/floods. Gee, I wonder how many billions of *federal* tax dollars Texas has used when they could have (theoretically) paid for it themselves with a higher *state* tax rate?

I do believe tax cuts will spur investment I don't think we're at the point on the Laffer curve where the increased tax revenue from economic growth will counter act the lost tax revenue but it doesn't need to be a 1:1 trade off for me to be OK with it. Eventually spending cuts is what is really needed.

We all know that lower corporate tax rates and repatriating foreign cash can "spur investment". I want someone to prove that "investment" doesn't just benefit the investment class/shareholders, but actually creates jobs for the modern displaced worker.