Yeah if you think business owners are going to hire more on a tax break? Nope.
If you don't think they will fire people to make up for any losses? Oh they will.
Businesses hire more employees when there is more demand for their stuff than their current employees can handle. Businesses shed employees when there is not enough demand for what their employees can do (major changes in automation/technology excluded on both points). Politics and taxes have very little to do with hiring / firing unless you are right on the edge of a step change (e.g. going from 14 to 15 employees) that would materially impact your business practices. It is about return on investment -- investment in people, training, machines, inventory, office space, whatever.
That said, a tax BREAK at this point might reduce the investment of hiring another employee, making the ROI higher, if the company was close to needing another employee to meet its demand. On the flip side, new taxes won't suddenly make you more able to service your demand, so the likelihood of firing employees is lower (particularly at this point in the business cycle where most companies are already running pretty lean and don't have much room to cut while still maintaining output).
At this point in the cycle, there are very few companies holding on to employees that aren't needed but still employed, unless it is sentimental or there has been something anomalous about their business or the company is facing pervasive decline that they did not expect. As a private equity guy (though I focus on growth rather than "financial engineering), I am plenty versed in when changes in employee headcount are needed. Never once has a particular tax entered into our discussion about layoffs or additional hiring -- it was about what the company needed to achieve its goals.
Don't take my word for it,
here is Warren Buffettasking the question at the top of the op-ed.