Employment-growth numbers per President

[noonereal]

Annual employment-growth rates for all 11 postwar presidents are listed below:Total employment
1. Lyndon Johnson (1963-69), 3.74%

2. Jimmy Carter (1977-81), 3.11%

3. Bill Clinton (1993-2001), 2.42%

4. Harry Truman (1945-53), 2.38%

5. Richard Nixon (1969-74), 2.30%

6. John Kennedy (1961-63), 2.28%

7. Ronald Reagan (1981-89), 2.04%

8. Gerald Ford (1974-77), 0.95%

9. Dwight Eisenhower (1953-61), 0.87%

10. George H.W. Bush (1989-93), 0.59%

11. George W. Bush (2001-09), 0.28%

Conclusion (obvious): Tax cuts do not create jobs. Tax increases do not make jobs go away.

[BlueStreak]

No kidding? Tax cuts are not meant to create jobs, they're meant to buy votes.

I think most of us here have noticed that, but further reinforcement never hurts.
Thanks, Nooner.

Dave

[djv8ga]

Originally Posted by noonereal

Tax cuts do not create jobs. Tax increases do not make jobs go away.

Change the £ to $

A lesson in economics brought to the masses. The tax system, explained in beer !


Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100..
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7..
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that's what they decided to do..
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So the first four men were unaffected.
They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers?
How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a pound out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got £10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.
The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
__________________

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by djv8ga

Change the £ to $

A lesson in economics brought to the masses. The tax system, explained in beer !

http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/howtaxes.asp

Nothing new or true here.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by djv8ga

Change the £ to $

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
__________________

correction,
for those that understand, it is bogus

[d-ray657]

In the fantasy, all of the people got the same benefit, but made different contributions. Obviously, those with high incomes benefit greatly from living here, the resources, the educated workers, the peace in their communities (at least the absence of actual armed conflict going on) the transportation system upon which goods are transported, and so on. They are getting considerably more under the deal than a single beer.

The story also perpetuates another myth - that the poor don't pay taxes. Anyone who is employed for a living, never see about 8% of their earnings. That is because they participate in the most regressive tax possible. The tax that people stop paying when they make a bit over 100K. That's social security which has been consistently raided so that the politicos could justify giving big tax breaks to the richest.

In other words, it's just not true.

Regards,

D-Ray

[whell]

Originally Posted by noonereal

Conclusion (obvious): Tax cuts do not create jobs. Tax increases do not make jobs go away.

You better get a hold of the White House with this info, then. They're looking to repeat history:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...c=nl_natlalert

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

You better get a hold of the White House with this info, then. They're looking to repeat history:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...c=nl_natlalert

They are considering a targeted tax credit to employers, tied to creating jobs. This is similar to the plan that the GOP has filibustered, which offered tax credits to small business, and a fund to boost the credit available to small businesses - to get some cash flow that would give them the stability to bring on more workers. That is significantly different than giving the rich more money to keep.

Regards,

D-Ray

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

They are considering a targeted tax credit to employers, tied to creating jobs. This is similar to the plan that the GOP has filibustered, which offered tax credits to small business, and a fund to boost the credit available to small businesses - to get some cash flow that would give them the stability to bring on more workers. That is significantly different than giving the rich more money to keep.

Regards,

D-Ray

Yeah, but that ain't all: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_702631.html

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by whell

Yeah, but that ain't all: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_702631.html

this just goes to show how hopeless the future of this country is for the masses