Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (43145)	5/10/2010 3:03:15 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

I believe that the MOST IMPORTANT LESSON to learn from the 30 years of modern economic experimentation is that: 1) cutting taxes (by itself) does not reduce the size of government. I can't really agree, because taxes are themselves part of government, cutting them IS reducing the size of government in an important way. Beyond that point, I'd say at least that cutting taxes is overrated as a way to cut other parts of, or measurements of, government. After tax cuts, government has often grown, of course its often grown absent tax cuts as well. All else being equal I'd say that cutting taxes puts some downward pressure on spending, but its not as big as the proponents of "starve the beast" seem to think, and it can easily be overwhelmed by other factors. But I agree the key is spending. Borrowing the money can be viewed as putting off the taxation (or inflation, or more rarely "painful" spending cuts) until the future, or as pulling the money out of the private sector now (as the borrowed funds are pulled away from the private sector).