>> See, a tax cut without a cut in spending, is just another form of deficit spending.
That is a non sequitur, since tax cuts can result in smaller deficits, or larger deficits. We are long beyond the point of believing that all tax cuts contribute to either deficits, or to deficit reduction.
In 1993, Clinton signed the Tax Reform Act, which cut taxes for low-income families and small businesses, while raising taxes on the wealthiest.
In 1997, he signed a bipartisan budget agreement that reduced capital gains and estate taxes, and gave taxpayers a $500 per child tax credit. Yet, deficits were reduced.
The two are related, but not linearly. They are both products of extremely complex functions and you cannot reasonably conclude that a change in one (tax rates or even tax collection) implies a change in the other, or movement in one direction or the other.
I can understand Koan, with his limited skills, not understanding this. But I thought maybe you'd studied a little calculus or linear algebra somewhere down the line. |
