"Actually read the report i did, it is no where near what is mentioned in the report": That's strange, because on the 2nd to last page of the presentation Dermot is pointing at it says a progressive income tax will cost 544 to 786 jobs per $100 million of income tax. So it looks like his math is right (with some rounding) when he says $300 million would result in a loss of 1,600 to 2,500 jobs.

"but that aside it says CUT's WILL COST MORE JOBS!" ... that wasn't the point of this line of conversation, started when Michael Albertson seemed flummoxed by the idea that an income tax could possibly cost jobs. Apparently it does. 

Besides, if maximum  employment was the goal, everyone should be handed a government job, right ? Well, we can't afford that you say. So how and why should we afford the ones we have?