I’m no economist but I’m a small business owner. Company profits pass to my personal return. If the company makes more money, taxes increase AND profits, too. If I reinvest profits (expansion and jobs), it’s an expense and I pay less taxes. So how do these ‘economists’ figure increased personal income taxes (back to original rates) mean less jobs? They’re only on profits. Do they believe a business owner prefers to lessen business (income) in order to reduce taxes? A basic business rule is ‘only hire employees who produce in excess of their pay.’ Expanding workforce, if the market warrants, is expanding business profits, and, yes, taxes in proportion. Politicians who spin facts are just what the Tea Party wants out of government. Take special interests out and put integrity in so we can be fiscally responsible and actually increase jobs. Lessen spending but hold the highest tax brackets responsible for reinvesting into the economy they earned from, not allowing them to hoard money from those making under $250,000. Those under $250,000 are the unemployed, losing homes, insurance, health care, retirements and savings. Shame on you, Jack Kingston and cohorts. Has anyone considered that a gradual increase back to normal is something the ‘wealthy’ could handle? They are the only ones whose taxes were reduced and are certainly not without houses, income, insurance, retirement, etc. The tax cuts were intended to encourage investment back into the economy, which obviously never happened! There’s no indication that theory will ever work.