SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
Recommended by:
PKRBKR
To: combjelly who wrote (821331)12/7/2014 5:28:42 PM
From: i-node1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) of 1585090
 
>> There you go again i-node. Making up economic theory out of whole cloth. There is no evidence that what you are saying is even close to true. While in the past there were some economists who thought that tax cuts can pay for themselves, most have abandoned this viewpoint.

The Bush '03 cuts paid for themselves until the economic crash.

The Reagan tax cuts paid for themselves. Easily.

The JFK tax cuts paid for themselves.

One can define "tax cut" in such a way that you're view is correct: That is, there is no tax cut if static revenue increases. But just speaking generally and logically, the stimulative effect of tax cuts can and often will produce more revenue.

For example, I have argued [correctly] that eliminating of the corporate income tax would increase treasury revenue on an ongoing basis because of the dynamic effects (it would, of course, also result in repatriation of trillions in investment income to the US which would provide an ongoing benefit to our country). This isn't even a close call; we would easily make up more than the corporate tax collections (~200-250B/y) because of increased revenue in other areas from eliminating the drag on corporate profits.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext