Businesses respond to jobs plan: Lower taxes on businesses do not create jobs

[high density]

The NY Times confirms what we already know:

The dismal state of the economy is the main reason many companies are reluctant to hire workers, and few executives are saying that President Obama’s jobs plan — while welcome — will change their minds any time soon.
...
“You still need to have the business need to hire,” said Jeffery Braverman, owner of Nutsonline, an e-commerce company in Cranford, N.J., that sells nuts and dried fruit. While a $4,000 credit could offset the cost of the company’s lowest-cost health insurance plan, he said, it would not spur him to hire someone. “Business demand is what drives hiring,” he said.
...
Chesapeake Energy, one of the biggest explorers of oil and gas in shale fields across the country, for example, said it had 800 positions open, and had already received tax credits for hiring the long-term unemployed.

But Michael Kehs, vice president for strategic affairs and public relations, said in an e-mail that the credit “does not drive our hiring.”

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/10/business/economy/in-the-real-world-will-the-jobs-plan-make-a-difference.html

It's time to stop repeating the same failed GOP ideas again and again which do nothing but weaken our financial footing and redistribute more wealth in the upward direction.

[ProSense]

1. Here is how the article ends

<...>

“If I get a $4,000 benefit for hiring you and I pay you $80,000 and you’re going to sit at your desk and do nothing because there’s nothing to do,” said Marty Regalia, chief economist of the United States Chamber of Commerce, “then the businesses aren’t going to hire you.”

I smell MSM/GOP agenda.

[high density]

4. So you think businesses will hire that person for $80k a year to get a $4k tax credit

even when the business has no work for that person to do?

[FrenchieCat]

2. Who said that the credit would "drive" hiring.....?

The job package has to be looked upon as a whole, not dissected into pieces....which is all that is happening in that part of the article you pasted. It all works in concert in relation to all that has been proposed, not just one part of it.

It is a no brainer that what will make Businesses hire is increased demand...which will be gotten NOT through this business credit, but rather via the additional payroll tax cut to employEEs as well as infrastructure work.

The credit is an added "incentive"......, but it's task is primarily to induce small businesses (the ones that are under a 5 million dollar payroll) to hire when faced with a choice as business increases. DOH!

We know, they know, and the Obama administration knows that it is increased spending resulting in increased demand that will spur hiring....but no one is saying otherwise. That's why that article is Doh!

[RBInMaine]

5. Right. The increased DEMAND is caused through the parts that directly create jobs and reduce middle

class taxes.

[FrenchieCat]

6. Xactly.....

For the sake of propaganda, the article cuts the nose off the face, and then talk about how the nose has no purpose since it ain't attached to the face! They are looking for "What an ugly face that is" reactions from reader.

Propaganda 102!

[Igel]

8. The OP was seeking confirmation.

Not information in order learn something.

The article doesn't do as bad a job as the excerpts say. Even the excerpt in the OP says "still" won't create jobs. People usually use the word in that way when there's something that's possibly a necessary condition or at least something that assists but which by itself isn't sufficient.

The OP wants confirmation that tax cuts do not create jobs and looked for it. Presumably, they never create jobs. The OP doesn't get that from the article or from what the businessmen said.

I've for years I've tried to tell students that if you have a hypothesis you *don't* look for evidence to substantiate it. That isn't critical thinking, it's not the scientific method. You look for anything that could undermine it; you try for experiments that undercut your hypothesis. Hypotheses are for testing, not justification. (Leave the doctrine of justification, whether by faith alone or by faith demonstrated by works, to Xian preachers, why not?)

II have taught students who have been told this over and over for years, whom I've told this to over and over for weeks or months, and still many say that the reason for an experiment is to find evidence to support their hypothesis.

[bhikkhu]

3. By the same theory, we could raise business taxes without effect?

You can't have it both ways really - its a stupid article.

I don't know anyone in business who doesn't look directly to the bottom line for guidance as to whether a policy is good for them or not, even if they might lie about it for political or personal reasons.

[mkultra]

7. And cutting payroll taxes doesn't create spending?

[killbotfactory]

9. Great, let's raise taxes on them.

Since it doesn't matter.