Corporate Tax Cuts Don't Stimulate Job Growth

June 20, 2011 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (5)

Prevailing conservative wisdom dictates that businesses need tax cuts—and investors need capital gains tax cuts—to get the economy moving. But two very well-executed articles on wages and taxes published recently suggest that targeting tax cuts at business executives may do little to improve the dismal unemployment picture.

[Check out a roundup of political cartoons on the economy.]

The Washington Post offers a startling analysis of income disparity, noting that the gap between the very rich and the rest of us has grown dramatically in the past few decades, reaching current levels that have not been seen since the Great Depression. In 2008, the Post reports, the top one-tenth of one percent of earners took in more than a tenth of the personal income in the United States. But the moneyed class is not dominated by professional athletes or big-name artistic performers or even hedge fund managers, the Post found. Instead, it is due to a big increase in executive compensation, even as real wages for some of their workers have dropped:

The top 0.1 percent of earners make about $1.7 million or more, including capital gains. Of those, 41 percent were executives, managers and supervisors at non-financial companies, according to the analysis, with nearly half of them deriving most of their income from their ownership in privately-held firms. An additional 18 percent were managers at financial firms or financial professionals at any sort of firm. In all, nearly 60 percent fell into one of those two categories.

The New York Times has a fascinating story that serves as an unwitting companion piece to the Post story. Corporate executives, the paper reports, are clamoring for a tax holiday to encourage them to bring their offshore profits back to the United States. And the money in question is big, the Times notes: Apple has $12 billion in offshore cash, while Google has $17 billion, and Microsoft, $29 billion. The companies with money sitting offshore argue that if the federal government were to offer them a huge tax break—say, a one-year drop from 35 percent to 5.25 percent—the businesses would bring the money home and operate as a private-sector economic stimulus. [See a slide show of the top 10 cities to find a job.]

However, the Times notes:

(T)hat’s not how it worked last time. Congress and the Bush administration offered companies a similar tax incentive, in 2005, in hopes of spurring domestic hiring and investment, and 800 took advantage. Though the tax break lured them into bringing $312 billion back to the United States, 92 percent of that money was returned to shareholders in the form of dividends and stock buybacks, according to a study by the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research.

Who needs a tax cut, then? The U.S. economy is very much consumer-driven; companies aren’t hiring, many business owners say, because people aren’t buying. The past behavior of corporations that have received huge tax cuts has not necessarily been to use the money to hire more people; the Bush-era tax cuts have been in place for a decade, and the unemployment rate is still 9.1 percent. And executive compensation has grown. Executives may feel entitled to earn more and more if their companies are doing well and expanding. But without customers, those companies will go bust.

Tags:
income tax,
Congress,
unemployment

Reader Comments Read all comments (5)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

As we can see the Bush Tax cuts of the Rich did not create jobs with the massive jobs were during the Bush Administration. If Bush's Tax Cuts worked we would have seen job created, and its undeniable that this country had a net job losses under eight years of Bush and his Tax Cuts.

No matter how many times and how often the the billionaires pay their trolls to repeat lies otherwise, Tax Cuts for the Rich are a failure.

Alex of MO 6:50PM June 21, 2011

And if not for the Bush tax cuts the current unemployment rate would be 12%.

Or 15%.

Or 18%.

What, Milligan not like me taking a page from the Plouffe handbook, viz a viz claiming that without the mega-wazoo $787 billion stimulus -- and that extra-special little $26 billion Aug. 2010 something for teachers -- that the current unemployment rate would be higher?

Good for the stimulus goose job claim. Good for the tax-cut gander job claim.

And what a prick Bush was, with introducing that entry-level 10% income-tax bracket. Knocked so many of the little people down a notch with what they have to part with as their... fair share.

Oooo! I can also pull a Krugman and say that the Bush tax cuts didn't go FAR ENOUGH. And that's why unemployment during this jobless recovery remains above 9% (officially, 17% in real life).

Wayhhh, eee-uh, wayhhh! He pulled another page from the Plouffe handbook!

So boo hoo. Both the mega-wazoo stimulus and tax-increase-on-anyone-or-anything ships left port. Not coming back. Learn to live within those constraints. And come up with something better.

We really have only one unemployment problem:

1) The wrong people are unemployed. That would be those still pounding the drum for tax increases while also saying we can't cut spending meaningfully. And that would be anyone that sticks up for big-liar Weiner. Or tries to scrape some of the sleaze off of Edwards. Or tries to say that some sort of Canadian hockey jingoism caused the bad behavior in Vancouver. But that particularly includes those like Obama and McCain who go the extra doofus mile to drop an additional couple billion of new federal debt to help out the Libyan... 'rebels.'

Oh yeah, look at the date, 20 June, 90 days plus one. Hey Milligan, what about that Obama lawyer-shopping to not need any stinkin' War Powers Resolution badge to keep his non-war Libyan war going? Any cultured pearls of shill wisdom from you on that, on how that positively affects job creation???

Well, if Milligan still can't find anything in the Palin e-mails to pontificate on for her next blog entry, she could show some real hustle and calculate how much of a tax break we are providing the well-to-do in Mexico annually, by providing so many of their campesinos with jobs, education, and health services via illegal immigration here in the US. Think we have wealth disparity here in the US? We're amateurs compared to Mexico.

Lookout Canadians. Things are grim for Obama's reelection. It's only a matter of time before he pulls a Calderon, and tells our unemployed here in the US: "Yo, go see what kind of work you can scrape up for yourselves in Canada. I'll tell the Canadians that your 'undocumented-worker' selves are good for their economy. Then send some of that good Canadian money back here. And hurry, you know?"

Now that would be giving corporations and the rich here in the US a real and indefensible tax break.

dom youngross of OH 8:14PM June 20, 2011

as to being insane,whats insane is to want to return to the same economic policies that put us in this quagmire.the republicans are hoping that by putting a new spin and name plate( now calling it the road map to prosperity ) on it,that they can con the american people one more time.

the rich get richer and the poor get childern,it's the republican way!

bruce b of NV 7:54PM June 20, 2011

Susan Milligan

Susan Milligan

Susan Milligan is a political and foreign affairs writer and contributed to a biography of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, "Last Lion: The Fall and Rise of Ted Kennedy." Follow her on Twitter @MilliganSusan.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement