Lowering taxes for the rich does not decrease unemployment because it is not in the best interest of the transnational corporations to use the resulting profits for job-creation. Instead, they often opt to channel the additional funds into activities that promote their growth more than job-creation. For example, they often use the funds obtained due to decreased taxation to finance their expansion projects in other countries. Just as frequently, they make political campaign contributions through lobbying that leads government executives to enact laws favorable to their companies. Even more commonly, they spend it on duplicitous advertisements that enable them to post windfall profits for sales of products of questionable quality.
To be sure, impoverished employers who
cannot expand are incapable of giving jobs to the unemployed. That is
why the government may combat the problem of unemployment by lowering
taxes on moribund small businesses whose very existence is threatened by
onerous taxation. Clearly, small organizations will find it in their
best interest to expand and thereby provide additional jobs, but that is
not always in the best interest of the transnational corporations.
If Wal-Mart wished to expand today, their capital is already more than
sufficient to achieve that objective. Wal-Mart's profits are not
threatened by the scarcity of consumers and they do not need to create more jobs to service more buyers. Instead, Wal-Mart's profits are threatened by laws and regulations that prevent them from behaving in a manner that most of their customers view as immoral. For example, Wal-Mart is threatened by the members
of the government who do not always support policies favorable to their
business interests, regulations on advertisements that prevent them from
unethically marketing their products and laws that do not allow them to
pollute the environment as they wish. Thus, it stands to reason that
any windfall profits because of the "Tax cuts for the rich" will be used
for purposes other than job-creation.