Lately, many articles and TV and radio shows have discussed how reducing taxes on the upper class would create jobs.

For the past 30 years, the tax code has been used to transfer more and more of the nation's purchasing power from the working class to the upper class. I guess it's possible some additional jobs might be created, but it is hard to believe a company would hire additional employees to serve a declining number of customers.

If the purchasing power of the nation's workers is declining, where does the additional purchasing power come from to buy any new products or even purchase all the products already being created? It is hard to understand why a company would give someone a job to produce a widget if there is no one to buy the widget.

Shifting purchasing power from the working class to the upper-income class has not increased the nation's aggregate consumer purchasing power, it has decreased it. Why? Because members in the upper-income class already have all the items needed for their comfortable lifestyle. They might add to the amount of money they invest, but that does not add to the nation's aggregate purchasing power. So back to my question: Why would a company hire someone to build a product if there is no one to purchase it? It just doesn't make economic sense.

Wally Hollinger

Okatie