During the seemingly endless runup to the compromise agreement on taxes that appears to be a done deal, the rhetoric from some corners sounded generally like this (emphasis mine):
“…the Democrats’ tax hike would force job creators to cut back or eliminate employee benefits, switch full-time jobs to part-time, and replace end of the year raises and bonuses with pay cuts, layoffs, or relocating to countries with lower tax and regulatory burdens.
“These are serious decisions that face our job creators as a direct result of the failure to prevent massive tax hikes.
“At a time when our economy is struggling to recover, why would we raise taxes on anyone who could create a job? Why would we, even partially, want to impede our nation’s path to economic recovery?”
The refrain that “no one ever got a job from a poor person” has been an ever-present argument that tax cuts for the wealthy must be extended.
Now, the “wealthy,” the “job creators” — however one defines that term — got Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 and subsequently produced what can only be described as tepid job growth. In July 2003, private sector employment was 108.231 million, its trough under Bush. 53 months later — in December 2007 — it peaked at 115.574 million (~140k/month on average, barely sufficient to keep up with new entrants into the labor market). That’s an average annual growth rate of 1.5%, compared to a rate over the past 72 years of 2.0% (and don’t even ask about the Clinton era).
So, for those who have trumpeted maintaining the status quo on taxes for higher-income “job creators,” I express my sincere hope that we start to see some 250k+ NFP prints, as the shoe is now on the other foot.
The ball is in your court — let’s get those “job creators” cranking . . .
What's been said:
Discussions found on the web: