Does tax cuts aimed at business to stimulate growth really work to taxpayers benefit?

Question

when the capital is used to develop jobs in a foreign economy?

Answer 1

Probably not in that sense but it did help increase tax revenues

Answer 2

Definitely not in that case, or in the case where executive's salaries go up and that's it. Tax cuts for large business could work, but not the way they have been done so far.

The economy does best when there is money in the hands of consumers. There are a lot of ways to do that, but simply cutting taxes for the rich just gives them more money--they aren't as likely to spend it as a middle class person, so the only way it helps the economy is if they reinvest it in their businesses stateside. If there were some strings attached to that coupon for paying taxes, ensuring that the tax cut has its intended effect, then it could work.

Answer 3

I am a conservative, but you are 100% right. I do believe in lowering taxes so that we can all spend more money. The problem isn't the tax cuts, it is the fact that these companies look the gift horse in the mouth, take their tax cuts and run to china. The goods aren't any cheaper to us and we lose jobs. F that crap we need huge tarrifs so that it becomes cheaper to make goods here than abroad. (I know NAFTA keeps this from happening). Unions could help too by not asking for so much money. Its labor people, they shouldn't be making as much as a college grad. You want money, then go to school and earn it, don't go on strike cause you can't afford your car payment anymore. cause all that does is make things more expensive to make and then ford starts making cars in mexico and then you come on here and ***** that all the jobs are in foreign countries. BREAK THE UNIONS, RAISE THE TARRIFS.

Answer 4

I'm a taxpayer and it has worked to mine. I am a middle class American and am working to save for Retirement with a 401K plan. The taxcuts have helped boom the stock market and stimulate business growth. Thus my 401K is making money for my retirement. Also, job growth is continuing to be very strong, if not better than the Tech boom in the Clinton years.
http://www.dryflypolitics.com

Answer 5

The trickle-down theory of economics can stimulate economic growth that benefits everyone. But it doesn't benefit everyone equally. The wealthy CEOs who control that money aren't going to give it away to the line workers, they'll keep it themselves or use it in ways that create more wealth for themselves (such as outsourcing).

Answer 6

Yes, they do work.

Capital is spent developing jobs in a foreign economy when there are NO tax cuts.

There are only two reasons companies send jobs overseas:

Taxes and Unions.

Answer 7

like foreign recipients of American outsourcing?

If you are a working person ... let's think about that for a nanosecond before answering in unison.

If you are American corporations seeking to increase gains on the backs of displaced workers ... again let them answer in unison ... "stockholder gains!!"

Answer 8

Absolutely not. Clinton era tax incentives for small businesses made a huge impact here. SBA loans ignited the small business market.

Reaganomics was the 1st, home grown, assault on the US labor force. Bushnomics are driving the final nails into the coffin.

Answer 9

In theory it does, but only if the corporations use that extra money to expand production, hire more workers, or give their current grunt-level employees a pay raise. In practice, that never happens--they renovate the board room and have quarterly meetings in Monte Carlo.

Answer 10

the point is to give foreign business incentive to come to America as well as giving American business more capital to expand, so yes

Answer 11

tell me how tax cuts to big business has increased tax revenue?


Sounds like VooDoo economics here we go again

What do you do when you want to screw only the working people of your nation with the largest tax increase in history and hand those trillions of dollars to your wealthy campaign contributors, yet not have anybody realize you've done it? If you're Ronald Reagan, you call in Alan Greenspan.
Through the "golden years of the American middle class" - the 1940s through 1982 - the top income tax rate for the hyper-rich had been between 90 and 70 percent. Ronald Reagan wanted to cut that rate dramatically, to help out his political patrons. He did this with a massive tax cut in the summer of 1981.
The only problem was that when Reagan took his meat axe to our tax code, he produced mind-boggling budget deficits. Voodoo economics didn't work out as planned, and even after borrowing so much money that this year we'll pay over $100 billion just in interest on the money Reagan borrowed to make the economy look good in the 1980s, Reagan couldn't come up with the revenues he needed to run the government.
Coincidentally, the actuaries at the Social Security Administration were beginning to get worried about the Baby Boomer generation, who would begin retiring in big numbers in fifty years or so. They were a "rabbit going through the python" bulge that would require a few trillion more dollars than Social Security could easily collect during the same 20 year or so period of their retirement. We needed, the actuaries said, to tax more heavily those very persons who would eventually retire, so instead of using current workers' money to pay for the Boomer's Social Security payments in 2020, the Boomers themselves would have pre-paid for their own retirement.
Reagan got Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Alan Greenspan together to form a commission on Social Security reform, along with a few other politicians and economists, and they recommend a near-doubling of the Social Security tax on the then-working Boomers. That tax created - for the first time in history - a giant savings account that Social Security could use to pay for the Boomers' retirement.
This was a huge change. Prior to this, Social Security had always paid for today's retirees with income from today's workers (it still is today). The Boomers were the first generation that would pay Social Security taxes both to fund current retirees and save up enough money to pay for their own retirement. And, after the Boomers were all retired and the savings account - called the "Social Security Trust Fund" - was all spent, the rabbit would have finished its journey through the python and Social Security could go back to a "pay as you go" taxing system.
Thus, within the period of a few short years, Reagan dramatically dropped the income tax on America's most wealthy by more than half, and roughly doubled the Social Security tax on people earning $30,000 or less. It was, simultaneously, the largest income tax cut in America's history (almost entirely for the very wealthy), and the most massive tax increase in the history of the nation (which entirely hit working-class people).
But Reagan still had a problem. His tax cuts for the wealthy - even when moderated by subsequent tax increases - weren't generating enough money to invest properly in America's infrastructure, schools, police and fire departments, and military. The country was facing bankruptcy.
No problem, suggested Greenspan. Just borrow the Boomer's savings account - the money in the Social Security Trust Fund - and, because you're borrowing "government money" to fund "government expenditures," you don't have to list it as part of the deficit. Much of the deficit will magically seem to disappear, and nobody will know what you did for another 50 years when the Boomers begin to retire 2015.
Reagan jumped at the opportunity. As did George H. W. Bush. As did Bill Clinton (although Al Gore argued strongly that Social Security funds should not be raided, but, instead, put in a "lock box"). And so did George W. Bush.
The result is that all that money - trillions of dollars - that has been taxed out of working Boomers (the ceiling has risen from the tax being on your first $30,000 of income to the first $90,000 today) has been borrowed and spent. What are left behind are a special form of IOUs - an unique form of Treasury debt instruments similar (but not identical) to those the government issues to borrow money from China today to fund George W. Bush's most recent tax cuts for billionaires (George Junior is still also "borrowing" from the Social Security Trust Fund).
Former Bush Junior Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill recounts how Dick Cheney famously said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Cheney was either ignorant or being disingenuous - it would be more accurate to say, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter if you rip off the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for them, and don't report that borrowing from the Boomers as part of the deficit."