> You could argue that lower taxes on individuals stimulate demand and encourage job creation, too. Correct, but you should also consider that creating a compa

> You could argue that lower taxes on individuals stimulate demand and encourage job creation, too. Correct, but you should also consider that creating a company creating jobs also adds another tax payer to the economy. > should have the burden of proving it's worth it. That is actually the whole point. The impact of consumption (purchasing power) will over time (if increasing) make it reasonable for companies who experiences these demands, to hire more employees to follow. How does that deviate from the idea of lowering tax so that the companies have incentives to create these jobs in the first place? Imagine the tax is twice as high (which, in most countries, is equal to the max taxation of indivduals). If that increase causes the company to only hire one (or none) employees, how would that be benificial? The new jobs would provide more tax revenue to the government, keeping in mind there's still the tax which the company pays, and the two tax filings by the job holders. But to your point, let's say both coorporations and individuals pay the low income tax. I'll try to say this the least synical way I can: there is a trade off between working and leisure. People (in general) would work less, which is not desirable if you're trying to maximize tax revenue. Overall, what I'm trying to convey is that consumption and company tax rates are combined means to a goal - tax revenue. What I question in your post is how stimulated demand creates more jobs if there's a shortage of employees due to people not needing to work as much.