A cut in corporation will be a win win situation.

Multi-national corporations who had relocated outside the U.S, to nations with a lower tax rate will almost certainly return.

The loonie lefties who think that they can finance additional government spending by increasing corporation tax make a couple of naive and cockeyed assumptions.

1) They don't take into account that the average large corporation will have more brains on it's board of directors than the entire administration team of government.

This invariably leads to the larger, high employers, relocating overseas.

Countries such as the Republic of Ireland and Luxembourg are the declared bases for many international companies, including those from the U.S, so they pay their taxes to those countries.

2) Domestic firms which don't have the same options as the multi-nationals will hide more profit by including director's ''payment in kind' in the company's outgoings which will reduce the shown profit and therefore their tax liability.

Holiday expenses = business travel,

Social evenings with family and/or friends= business entertainment.

Automobile costs including private mileage= business motoring expenses, and so on.

When the ''tax on profits'' seems fair most, not all, but most business owners will pay their just and lawful Inland Revenue dues in full and rid themselves of the millstone of constantly looking over their shoulder, trying to hide their skullduggery and living in dread of an I.R.S., inspection/investigation.

The upshot of tax reductions will be a significant increase in the overall value of tax receipts and a massive reduction in the cost of benefit handouts.

From these increased tax revenues the much heralded infrastructure contracts can be financed.

Just one small point, no one goes into business to create jobs.

People go into business primarily to make a profit.

If their business plan involves the necessity of employing people, then so be it.

Of course a tax cut alone would create jobs, because producers aren't producing shit that isn't in demand. More supply side money for expansion/investment and more demand side money to purchase/consumption. This would create jobs, and if we had stable economic leadership, would have better long run effects.

On the other hand, government stimulating demand would potentially lead to greater job creation than tax cuts in the short run. So the economy would appear stronger for the guy in office. Never mind that it is not a long run solution and artificial demand fizzles out.

The best thing the government can do for an economy in the long run is leave as much money as possible in the hands of those who earn it and eliminate ineffective or redundant regulations.

The best thing the government can do in the short run is print a bunch of money and flood the financial system before anyone knows that's why they did (thus stimulating demand), and then keep that a secret for as long as possible. And then figure out what to do when everyone figures it out.