Key advisor and author of Regan tax cuts states they don't create growth

Fine, then, tax cuts = more money for campaign donations.

 

Uh, it's Reagan. Yes, the grand tax cut myth. Voodoo economics.

 

Tax cuts reduce revenues and don't increase economic growth.

 

Sad that most Americans are too stupid to understand this.

 

The GOP platform is heavily myth based.

 

it's not only doesn't work, it's counter-productive... leading to larger deficits and possibly larger spending

So why do Republican keep insisting 'tax cut' is solution to everything? Foolish? Or... follow the money.

https://www.forbes.com/2010/05/06/t...arve-the-beast-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html

For some years Bill Niskanen of the libertarian Cato Institute has argued that STB (starve the beast via tax cuts) actually increased spending and made deficits worse. His argument is that the cost of spending is ultimately the taxes that will have to be raised to pay for it. Thus fear of future tax increases was the principal brake on spending until STB came along. By eliminating tax increases as a necessary consequence of deficits, it also reduced the implicit cost of spending. Thus, ironically, STB led to higher spending rather than lower spending as the theory posits.

In the latest study of STB, political scientist Michael New of the University of Alabama confirms Niskanen’s analysis. “Revenue reductions by themselves are not an effective mechanism for limiting expenditure growth,” New concluded. “The evidence suggests that lower levels of federal revenue may actually lead to greater increases in spending.”

In effect STB became a substitute for spending restraint among Republicans. They talked themselves into believing that cutting taxes was the only thing necessary to control the size of government. Thus, rather than being a means to an end–the end being lower spending–tax cuts became an end in themselves, completely disconnected from any meaningful effort to reduce spending or deficits.

Starve the beast was a theory that seemed plausible when it was first formulated. But more than 30 years later it must be pronounced a total failure. There is not one iota of empirical evidence that it works the way it was supposed to, and there is growing evidence that its impact has been perverse–raising spending and making deficits worse. In short, STB is a completely bankrupt notion that belongs in the museum of discredited ideas, along with things like alchemy.

 

What will the go-to solution for every economic problem be for the Republicans if they finally get their tax cuts through? They literally have no other ideas when it comes to the economy besides cutting taxes/regulations and reducing spending (except for the military of course). It doesn't matter whether the economy is in good shape or not, this is all they ever tout. It would be interesting to see what a Republican platform would look like in the future if they finally got their way in these areas.

 

See Kansas? They fk up so bad, they finally reverse themselves... at least the legislators.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/unpacked/2017/07/11/the-kansas-tax-cut-experiment/

• In 2012, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback sought to boost the economy by sharply cutting income taxes across the board.
• Under his plan, the tax rate on pass-through business income fell to 0. The idea was to boost investment, raise employment, and jump-start the economy.
• This type of supply-side trickle-down theory has been proposed by Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and many others.
• The program in Kansas served as a lab test for how supply side tax cuts may work at the federal level. In Kansas, however, these tax cuts proved unsuccessful.
• The Kansas economy did not grow faster than neighboring states, the country itself, or even Kansas’ own growth in previous years.
• The experiment with tax policy was such a failure that a Republican controlled legislature not only voted to raise taxes, but did so over the veto of the governor.
• Rather than Democrats overturning the tax measure, this was a case of Republicans in power looking at the effects of the tax cut on the economy and making the decision that it was, overall, a bad idea.
• The experiment in Kansas has important implications for federal tax reform, the first being not to expect tax cuts to boost the economy much, if at all.
• Second, a lowered business income tax can be manipulated. While Kansas cut the tax rate on pass-through income to 0 in hopes of promoting economic activity, the growth simply didn’t happen. In reality, many people in Kansas re-characterized income from labor into business-form in order to take advantage of the 0 percent tax rate.
• At the federal level, Republicans often express intent to reduce the corporate and business income tax rates. The lesson from Kansas is that, while this might induce some increase in economic activity, it certainly will induce a massive increase of tax sheltering.
• There are other, more general, takeaways from the tax cut experiment. When Kansas cut taxes, its bond rating went down, and it had to cut central services such as education and infrastructure. After seeing this, a majority of Kansans decided they would not prefer to keep the tax cuts.
• Therefore, another implication is that tax reform is not just about taxes, rather what taxes pay for. Taxes and spending are linked.
• The tax reform discussion should include what it is that citizens are getting from the taxes they pay.

 

Tax cuts that directly puts money in my pockets ends up in savings. I dont mindlessly blow it on stupid ****. So yes, tax cuts do not generate growth in my case.

In other words, if a politican is going to put money into my pocket through tax cuts, they will get my vote. Just as any other person who would selfishly vote for a politican, as will I.

 

There is very weak correlation between Tax rates and growth rates. You can do the math yourself.

Supply side economics is voodoo economics.

 

More tax cuts, why of course.

I am sure a plausible argument could be made that the US government should pay not tax the top 1%.

 

No one wants to pay taxes, but the truth is that Taxing is good for society, particularly taxing corporations.....

DD

 

I'm also a saver.

I love to have more money in my pockets, but I have to consider the costs of that as well. Education and school? Deficits for next gen? Overall economic growth? Employment... social service... infrastructure... security.. and so on.

Tax cuts (and doing nothing else) doesn't grow the economy. It does increase the deficit and probably government spending. I would not vote for a candidate that think tax cut is the one and only solution to all things given what we know now after nearly 40 years of data.

 

I have no problem if you want to pay more taxes. By all means, feel free to donate. But please don't advocate raising mine. Federal Tax, State Tax, County Tax, City Tax, Sales Tax, Property Tax, Fuel Tax, Sin Tax, Registration Tax, Regulation Fees ... I could go on and on and on. I think I am taxed enough and I welcome a break.

 

Right, because donations make up the difference of huge tax cuts. Where did I adovcated raising tax? I called for being socially and fiscally responsible and not completely one sided, especially when it's for nothing but one own $$$$, an extreme selfish position.

 

Maybe this guy actually wrote Regan's and they went with Reagan's instead after Nancy talked to Joan Quigley. "Yeah, no; these wouldn't have worked, either. I guess bleeping Jupiter was bleeping aligned with bleeping Mars."

 

The rich need to pay more, but corporate tax rates under IKE were 90%, so in order for the corporations to avoid paying tax they invested in people.....

Great for the economy.



I am with Ike. Let's truly make America great !

DD