I only wish some people on this site would realize this. If tax cuts created jobs (no good evidence supporting they do), the American economy would be more than wealthy by now.

Oh fuck off! LOL :P

Its not just "lower taxes" it is the net cost of doing business in a region/country ...

The United States spends (nearly) as much as most western developed nations, with taxes that are (nearly) as high, but most western developed nations offer a lot more services a lot better than the United States does; and the current direction of the United State's finances are ensuring that taxes will be higher in the future and the quantity and quality of services will be lower.

actually abortions are Government funded in Australia, as to same sex marriage if I'm not mistaken is treated pretty much like defacto marriages in you have all the  government entitlelments but don't have a marriage certificate.

as to racism the vast majority of Australians find racism abhorrent just as the vast majority of Americans do in the end we are all human and all suffer from the same problems .

The only thing that matters is if there is money to be made.  Tax the wealthy 80% of their income and they will still start businesses and hire workers to make a profit and meet demand, just like America in the 1950's.  You could not tax the wealthy at all, heck you can give them money, but they won't create jobs unless there is money to be made meeting demand.

Thats the lesson that both the Republicans and Democrats should have learned with the Bush and Obama tax cuts.

No, taxing individuals like that will ensure that they pay themselves 5 times as much; and recover the costs by paying their employees less and increasing the cost of their goods/services more. Or, another possibility for these individuals is to pay themselves with stock options, bonuses, or through dividends (if they own enough of the company) and avoid taxes by not earning "income".

If you want to promote economic growth you have to produce a climate where individuals, small companies, and corporations can thrive because of straight forward, well thought out and resonable regulation, fair tax rates which are justified by quality government services, and a highly productive cost-effective work force. Or to put it another way, the complete opposite of what the establishment Republicans and Democrats stand for.

Edit: On a side note, I must ask where are wealthy people supposedly putting their money so that it isn't returned to the economy to produce jobs? Remember that putting money into bank accounts or buying bonds drives lending, and buying any other investment (stocks or commodities) gives someone else cash to spend in the economy.

Employers do not decide how much their employees are worth, the market decides how much they are worth.  Employers have to pay their employees what the market values says they are worth, otherwise they won't have as good employees or, if its too low they won't have any employees.  The reason that mechanical engineers get paid $50,000 a year while fast food workers make $20,000 a year isn't because their employers just decided to pay them some arbritary number, its because thats how much their labor is worth on the market.

Nor do they decide the value of goods, the market decides the value of goods.

To answer your side note, the same as everybody else.  Here, we are effectively deciding to limit luxury spending of the rich to promote necessity spending of the poor.  Its ultimately a social and moral approach rather than purely an economic one.

er... what?

I don't think you understand economics.

An employee's value on the market is detrimined by the value his work has to the average company.

When you raise taxes... that worker's value decreases because his value to the company and individuals in charge is lowered.

It's why Men's proffesional basketball players make much more then Women's proffessional baskebtall players.

Heck why do you think basketball players get paid more then cops or teachers?   Because the market says they deserve to be paid more because they make their bosses more money.

It's not based on any intrinsic value... otherwise sports atheletes and moviestars would be paid almost nothing.

if you suddenly jacked up a sports owners tax that made sports owners pay half of what they made...

what are the odds basketball players get paid nearly as much as they do now?

Or any group of people.

Heck, in general your arugement is basically one for why high taxes means that less talented people take up high paying jobs... or it would if you could look past your own political ideological fog.

Higher taxes = people getting paid less = less skilled people and less workers in general = job loss.

I mean, through your own logic...  higher taxes = job loss.

I mean, it's common sense.

If I say... You can spend 100 dollars to have someone make a painting and you have a 70% chance of getting 200 dollars back.

You are more likely to do it then

If I say... you can spend 100 dollars to have someone make a paintingand you have a 70% chance of getting back 170 dollars.

If we lived in an imaginary world where buisnesses, companies and investors ALWAYS were going to make a proft, you might have a point.

We don't live in such a world.

To a certain extent you're right, but you fail to see the whole picture ...

You increase taxes on high income individuals (mostly small business owners) or corporations and one of their initial reactions will be to cut costs to maintain their current income level; this will translate into layoffs and a reduction in spending across the board. The reduced revenues these companies receive due to lower employment and other companies cutting back may result in further cost cutting. When this is done there is a massive surplus in labour which results in lower income increases, and people getting hired for lower wages with fewer benefits.

By the time the employment rate returns to normal employeers are earning about as much as they ever did (after taxes) but the employees are earning less and have fewer benefits.