And Now, For A Change Of Pace…
It’s official — Arthur Laffer wins. New data show federal revenues surged in the first three quarters of the current fiscal year. Corporate tax receipts are up more than 26% over the same period last year, ringing in at $250 billion. Individual income tax collections, at $791 billion, are up 14% over the first nine months of fiscal 2005. The Congressional Budget Office projects corporate tax receipts will total $330 billion by the end of the fiscal year. As a result, the deficit for the year is expected to be about $300 billion, down from $318 billion last year and $412 billion the year before.
What, you ask, has led to this miraculous event? A tax cut, it turns out. Or rather, an array of tax cuts, on corporate income, personal income, and capital gains. These tax cuts, passed in 2001 and 2003, appear to be having the desired effect of spurring economic growth by creating addition incentives for work and entrepreneurship. The latest numbers, moreover, offer some hard data to challenge some of the charges leveled against President Bush and congressional Republicans in respect of tax cuts. These tax cuts haven’t exactly benefited “the rich.” A third of those higher income-tax revenues came from the highest-earning 1% of households, according to the New York Times.
Well, that last bits a little much even for this Bush supporter; the fact that a third of the higher revenues is coming from the top 1% means they are doing very well, indeed, in respect to these cuts…but as a firm believer in trickle-down economics, that’s okay by me…
These kind of stories are always trotted out as evidence of the miraculous nature of tax cuts, but they prove no such thing. Tax revenues are going up because the economy is growing. The economy is cyclical. There is no evidence that Bush’s tax cuts caused the economy to grow. After all, the economy grew at a record pace throughout the 90s following Clinton’s tax increase. Does that prove that his tax increase caused the economy to grow? That argument is just as persuasive.
But more importantly, no one really questions that some tax cuts can, in some circumstances, stimulate the economy. But no reputable economist thinks that tax cuts pay for themselves, i.e., that they produce more tax revenue than there otherwise would have been. And that’s the entirely misleading claim that Republican politicians ALWAYS make. The fact that revenues for this year were greater than some artificially low projection doesn’t come anywhere close to proving that Bush’s tax cuts paid for themselves. They didn’t.
Moreover, this data doesn’t even come close to showing that we are currently above the Laffer curve. Laffer was no doubt correct to point out that there is some level of taxation that is so high that it actually results in less revenue (by stifling growth) than a lower rate would. But that number is likely much higher than our current tax rates, which are the lowest in the world. Cutting taxes may at times lead to increased revenue on a percentile basis, but there is no evidence at all that it increases revenue by enough to offset the tax cut itself. That’s the issue.
And surely there is some connection between the fact that we have such low taxes and the world’s biggest economy, no?
I’m not claiming tax cuts entirely pay for themselves; but clearly, the tax cuts did boost the economy tremendously. And after all, it is not raw deficit numbers that matter, but rather the deficit as a percentage of GDP; and by that measure, the deficit is miniscule…
“But no reputable economist thinks that tax cuts pay for themselves, i.e., that they produce more tax revenue than there otherwise would have been”
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. That is exactly and precisely what happened with the capital gains tax cut. MORE, yes much much more revenue than had been projected under the old, higher rates. That is exactly and precisely what has happened lately with the income tax cuts: lower rates GREATER revenue. It happened for Kennedy. It happened for Coolidge. It happened for Reagan, din’t it? Gee, coincidence abounds. These are of course the low hanging fruits and further tax cuts are not going to produce such results as we are near the left/lean end of the Laffer curve but the way you formulate that, hoss, is just bunkum. Check Friedman, Hayek et al. Are these guys NOT “reputable economists”? Well, their reputations grow by the day while the Keynesians are, justly, eroded as drastically.
And this story is not “trotted out” it has had to crawl and scratch its way through a maze of hostile media actions and only now, once it is irrefutable, can it claim a bleary glimpse at the sun.
And surely there is some connection between the fact that we have such low taxes and the world’s biggest economy, no?
I agree with that. In fact, I think almost all Americans agree with that, which is why no one from either party is advocating for a Scandanavian-style tax system. But it’s one thing to assert that an economy does better when the highest tax rate is 35% as opposed to 80%. It’s another thing to assert that the ecomony does better when the highest tax rate is 35% as opposed to 38%. There’s no evidence that tweeking already low tax rates makes any real difference at all. And there is certainly no evidence that lowering already low tax rates pays for itself. None.
I’m not claiming tax cuts entirely pay for themselves; but clearly, the tax cuts did boost the economy tremendously.
How do you now that? Couldn’t I just as easily claim that the unprecedented economic growth that followed Clinton’s 1992 tax increase proves that his tax increases “boosted the economy tremendously”? You can’t ascribe cause and effect to something like that. The data just doesn’t support it. Could Bush’s taxes have caused the economy to grow? Possibly. But its also just as possible that the economy would have rebounded the way it did without the tax cuts. It’s certainly done that in the past, repeatedly.
As for your comment, megapotamus, you seem to have swallowed the voodoo economics lecture hook, line, and sinker. Even the president’s own top economists (Mankiw, for instance) concede that tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves. They may increase revenue, but not enough to offset the amount of revenue lost by the cut. This really isn’t in dispute among actual economists. Your tour of history is less than persuasive in that it is highly selective and ignores reality. Even Reagan conceded that his tax cuts didn’t pay for themselves and, as a result, agreed to raise taxes on more than one occasion.
The idea that cutting taxes is costless, that it will magically result in even more revenue than the government had before is pure political theater. There is no empirical evidence or logic behind it. There is no free lunch in life. If you want to cut taxes, you have to offset those cuts with spending cuts, something the GOP has never shown any real willingness to do. So instead they continue to cut taxes and accumulate debt that future generations will have to pay off in the form of higher taxes.
AL-you are crazy to dismiss the idea that lowering the cost of transactions results in the same amount of transactions.
The success of the 90′s? The stock market did well, people cashed out, paid their taxes and increased govt revenue. The DJ increased 4 fold in a short period of time.
The success we are experiencing now? Note that the market is relatively flat…but the expense of of selling stocks has been reduced enough that people are willing to trade on smaller returns.
The idea is simple-take an amusement park- 50k go thru the gate in a week, so in order to raise money the company goes with a democratic plan-raise the ticket price by 5%. Lo and behold, when they do this, ticket sales go down 10%-fewer transactions. Now if they follow a supply side theory, and reduce the cost by 5%, attendance goes up by 10%.
The world operates on the margins, and for you to dismiss the idea that reduction in the cost of transaction price, will cause a net loss is to deny the principals of supply and demand. Libs are stilling trying to understand it, but failing on a grand scale.
The US’s lower burden of business, relative to Europe’s, has been showing success since Reagan. We are averaging 3.5% growth, while the European growth rate is lucky to exceed 2%.(The difference between 3.5% and 2% growth means the US is growing 75% faster than Europe-not 1.5% faster) Take a look at Tesco in the UK-1in 8 retail dollars spent there goes to Tesco. Higher tax burdens reduce competition to a climate where only conglomerates can break even. A smaller competing business cannot compete aginst a conglomerate, so no new business is created.
I am open to the theory that the tax reductions may have been too far, and that revenue could still be maximized by a small adjustment upward, but the current dem mindset-ignoring that the reduction in the cost of business could lead to increase in overall revenue is moronic and myopic.
“But no reputable economist thinks that tax cuts pay for themselves, i.e., that they produce more tax revenue than there otherwise would have been.”
Any reputable guys out there who believe raising will not reduce revenue? I mean I’m all for maximization, but is there a point at which raising taxes does eat into govt profits? Clearly yes.
It is not some concrete number or %, but to deny the possiblity that it is already too high, in the face of the long term success of America v. Europe is worse than holocaust deniers.
Let me give you a simple test-
Why did we go from stagflation under Carter to along term economic boom that continues today, starting with Reagan?
Worth noting that marginal tax rates were at 70% for the extreme wealthy under Carter-Reagan brought them down to 38%…why did we succeed by taxing the wealthy at hafl the rate they were previously experiencing? I would argue that the tax cuts did pay for themselves.
You denial is akin to buying a speaker system, it is already on volume 5-so you infere that you can only turn the system up to achieve the best sound.
Not everything is as it appears to be.
1) “The success of the 90’s? The stock market did well, people cashed out, paid their taxes and increased govt revenue.” Same as today. The Dow is up 38% from 1/1/03 to today, and people are cashing out.
“The market is relatively flat” only over a much longer term. The Dow trades for less today than it did when the century started.
2) The 70% marginal tax rate under Carter was for unearned income. The dual structure of taxing earned and unearned income was jettisoned, and today we have a different dual tax structure (“normal” tax and the AMT).
“There is no empirical evidence or logic behind…”
The question for tax cuts comes down to this question, which Dems can never answer definitively – name one country that’s taxed it’s way to prosperity?
The US since World War II:
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
MTL,
You’re vastly oversimplying an incredibly complex system. And your argument regarding tax rates is exactly backwards. I fully concede that there is a level of taxation above which further increases will actually result in lower revenue (because growth will be stifled). But what possible evidence is there, logically or empirically, that we are currently above that magical threshold? We have the lowest tax rates (by far) in the world. In fact, we have lower tax rates than we did in the 90s, when we underwent the largest and longest period of growth in our history. In 1992, every single Republican voted against the Clinton tax increases, and all of them warned that passing such increases would send the country spiralling into economic chaos. Go back and read the floor speeches if you don’t believe me. It was apocaliptic stuff. But sure enough, that didn’t happen. Why? Well, probably because we are nowhere near the point at which raising taxes would result in decreased overall tax revenue. Most economists think rates have to be pretty damn high for that to happen, much higher than they are in this country.
The policy question at issue in this country is not whether we should have European level tax rates. That will never happend. They issue is whether we should have rates high enough to cover our costs. There is little reason to think that small differences in marginal tax rates have huge impacts on the economy. There are just too many other, more significant factors. Productivity is not significantly affected by such minor tinkering with incentives.
Let me give you an example of the so-called tax cuts.
I own company ‘a’ and company ‘b’.
If I am running a large loss in company ‘b’ and sell those shares-previously the loss could not have been written off. I am modestly ahead in company ‘a’. I could sell my company ‘a’, but previously could not offset it by the losses of ‘b’.
I now can write off the loss of ‘b’ to offset my gain in ‘a’. I know how bad this looks-it has ‘tax cut’ written all over it. It also has logic written all over it as well. Why should an investor not be able to write off a loss? The overall result is that people are now more inclined to invest, which offsets the amount of money that is lost in those ‘tax cuts’.
Let’s put this to an actual example:
I lose 90% of a 100k investment.
I make 10% on another 100k investment.
Before the ‘tax cuts’ I would take the hit of losing 90%, and to add insult to injury-would have formerly been forced to pay taxes on the 10% gain. By allowing for offsetting losses and gains, there is a reduction in tax revenue.
This whole process is offset by the increase in the number of investors, who had been previously less inclined to go into the market for the draconian tax system. Yes, if you look at individuals, some will show a substantial tax break, but the gain in the number of investors showing a gain offsets this.
The whole theory of supply side is supported by the growth of the US economy over the past 25 years, relative to Europe’s. Lower business tax increases GDP. Higher business taxes slow GDP.
Much rather have 30% of a million, than 90% of a 100k.
“Let’s put this to an actual example:
I lose 90% of a 100k investment.
I make 10% on another 100k investment.
Before the ‘tax cuts’ I would take the hit of losing 90%, and to add insult to injury-would have formerly been forced to pay taxes on the 10% gain. By allowing for offsetting losses and gains, there is a reduction in tax revenue.”
Not correct. You are only allowed to take a $1500 deduction ($3000 for married filing jointly) for investment losses in any given year, although any losses you cannot write off can be carried forward and applied against gains in future years.
The question for tax cuts comes down to this question, which Dems can never answer definitively – name one country that’s taxed it’s way to prosperity?
That’s not the question at all. Clinton was president for 8 years and he barely raised taxes at all, and only the wealthy. Democrats have no desire to raise taxes in any significant way. But they do think that perpetually cutting taxes is reckless. And cutting taxes seems to be the only thing the GOP is capable of doing legislatively. At some point, the adults are going to have to come back to Washington and restore fiscal sanity.
The whole theory of supply side is supported by the growth of the US economy over the past 25 years, relative to Europe’s. Lower business tax increases GDP. Higher business taxes slow GDP.
This is only true in an entirely unilluminating way. Most Americans (whether Democrats or Republicans) have long since come to the conclusion that a lower-tax system is preferrable to a high-tax European style system. In other words, even if the Democrats manage to take over all the branches of government, there will not be any push to turn America into Sweden. That debate was settled long ago.
But just because a 30% tax rate is preferrable to an 85% tax rate, doesn’t mean that a 30% tax rate is preferrable to a 32% tax rate. In America, the debate is about these minor differences. And those differences represent the difference between a balanced budget and a huge deficit that drags down the economy and puts us at the mercy of Asian central banks. Now there is no real evidence that slighly lowering already low tax rates produces enough of a benefit (if any) to offset the cost of running high defecits. That’s the question.
AL,
If there is no evidence that lowering tax rates will increase tax revenue, then there is also no evidence that raising tax rates or maintaining tax rates will have any afffect on tax revenue either.
Since there is no evidence either way, why not lower tax rates?
Andy-your graph fails to show what individual income taxation is…
these are the so-called wealthy.
“This is only true in an entirely unilluminating way.”
So long as the democrat do not discuss the implications of increasing taxes it will remain unilluminating.
I’m looking for the Clinton tax increase as it seemed to coincide with a signifcant drop in gdp growth.
” But just because a 30% tax rate is preferrable to an 85% tax rate, doesn’t mean that a 30% tax rate is preferrable to a 32% tax rate.”
I completely agree. The answer is found in examination, not in ‘labeling’. All you have to do is get the democrats who are willing to discuss the idea that tax can be REDUCED, as well as increased, to maximize profit. Currently the democrats rely on the social mantra of class warfare.
I am pro-choice(12 weeks), pro-marijuana legalization, and a moderate on most other issues…but economics is the litmus test and while the gop seems far from perfect, the democratic party is incapable of reasonable discussion on this matter. If they were more flexible in the ideology, and semantics, I’d probably jump ship. Which ever party endorses the idea that increasing the growth of gdp is the most critical element of our global success, will earn my vote.
I see flashes of this thinking from the right, and not a flicker from the left.
“You’re vastly oversimplying an incredibly complex system.”
you mean like using the term-
Tax cut for the wealthy?
Since there is no evidence either way, why not lower tax rates?
All things being equal, I totally agree. But there is the whole business about funding our government. The only reason taxes exist is in order to pay for the operating costs of government. And as things stand, we’re not even coming close to covering those costs. So instead we borrow from Asian central banks and accumulate debt to pass on to the next generation of tax-payers. That’s not a sustainable system.
“We have the lowest tax rates (by far) in the world…”
I’m not sure about this, but doesn’t Ireland have lower rates than the US at this point? When I visited there a few years ago, all the locals were discussing this issue.
I’m not happy at all with Bush’s conduct regarding Federal spending – he’s much worse than Clinton was, which may be one argument for a divided government in the future – helps keep the parties from going over the cliff on their economic policies. And yes, I’m not sure how we’re going to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq at this point – it’s really adding up, and if they don’t get their oil wells up and running close to 100% shortly, that’s going to be an interesting election year issue for ’08.
“Not correct. You are only allowed to take a $1500 deduction ($3000 for married filing jointly) for investment losses in any given year, although any losses you cannot write off can be carried forward and applied against gains in future years.”
No, you are not correct.
Schedule d allows for a comparison of net losses to net gains-
the limit on the deduction is for the difference betwen the two. 50K gained, 54 k- lost you can write off 3000 of the 4000 lost. But you can also offset the 50k gain by the 54 k loss. So in theory, a 53k write-off was given.
AL,
You missed my point. You claim there is no evidence that lowering tax rates increases tax revenue. I don’t agree, but I figured I didn’t need to argue the point because your point is self-contradictory.
Perhaps I should be more direct. Is it your claim that raising tax rates will increase tax revenue? Where is your evidence?
BTW AL,
Just what is the relationship between tax rates and tax revenue?
And while you are at it, what is the relationship between tax revenue and government spending?
Additionally, what is the relationship between government spending and government deficits?
I could go on, but these three questions should establish your credibility.
Mtl: if “I lose 90% of a 100k investment and I make 10% on another 100k investment,” then I have a gain of $10K and a loss of $90K – for a net loss of $80K –
Perhaps I should be more direct. Is it your claim that raising tax rates will increase tax revenue? Where is your evidence?
As long as you are not at or above the optimal point on the laffer curve (and no reputable economists think we are anywhere close), tax increases result in a net increase in revenue, and tax cuts result in a net decrease. It’s not necessarily a 1 to 1 relationship, though. In other words, if I cut taxes from their present rates, it may stimulate some growth, thereby making up some (but not all) of the lost revenue. Similarly, if I raise taxes, it may stifle growth, thereby diminishing some (but not all) of the projected increase in revenue. But basic math and common sense still apply: in the normal course of events, tax increases lead to a net increase of tax revenue, tax decreases lead to a net decrease in tax revenue. Nearly all economists would agree with that.
That’s not to say there is anything inherently good about increasing taxes. Of course there isn’t. Taxes should be as low as possible. But taxation should be set a level that at least comes close to covering our costs. That’s called fiscal sanity.
And while you are at it, what is the relationship between tax revenue and government spending?
Additionally, what is the relationship between government spending and government deficits?
The GOP has long endorsed the so-called “starve the beast” idea, i.e., that creating deficits serves to rein in government spending. But a number of recent articles (I’ll have to go hunting for them) have argued quite persuasively that history demonstrates that the opposite is true. Deficit spending encourages a free lunch attitude that leads to even further spending. Tax-cuts certainly haven’t led to decreased spending during the last 6 years of republican rule. How much more evidence do you need that the “starve the beast” mantra is a bunch of hooey.
The heart of the matter is simply income tax.
Forget all other forms of taxes.
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/bus/A0825078.html
Each variance leads to stratification of society, but large variances restrict upward mobility.(and importantly-a kind variance to help the low income actual makes it more desirable for them to fail in the short run) I see the restrictive income taxes favoring those who already have wealth as inheritance-Krugman, Vanden Heuvel, Paris Hilton-this is our ‘noble class’.
Their success is all but certain, their need for income a secondary thought. Lurking in the shadows though are those who would seek to equal their financial wealth. Their only means? Income. Suddenly the noble-social engineering class is being faced with ‘new’ wealth experienced by others. It threatens their very fabric of society.
When I hear about rich Republicans, I think of the wage earners and not the inheriters. In terms of social darwinism, the liberal elite are/were the top feeders, like royalty in europe. Now there are a lot more dukes and duchesses and the wealthy elite have to play ‘keeping up with the jones’.
When I see those who are making 250,000 a year in wages being called the ‘rich’ by the trustfund babies worht 50 million, but lacking a meaningful job, I get nauseous.
Warren Buffet and Bill Gates? Both have meaningfully benefitted from our system, both ‘worked’ in it and now their altruism is returned. Like rockefeller before them.
These are the real leaders and success in america, becuase they had to climb, and were given a system where they could climb. The very same who are leading the intellectual charge to champion the inheritance tax are targeting capital goods, while the wealthy nobles that they represent have invested their wealth so as to not fall victim.
The uber wealth is trying to engineer their own survival by thinning the competition and making the barriers of success more difficult. Those who are appalled by low income tax, better be honest and tell America what they are paying.
Peter-yes you have an 80K net loss. or an 80k tax break… depending on who is stating the argument.
Line 7 and 15 both include the term ‘net’-short term gains(losses), and long terms gains(losses), respective.
“Both have meaningfully benefitted from our system, both ‘worked’ in it and now their altruism is returned.”
I agree with this sentiment, but both of these individuals have come out quite strongly against the repeal of the estate tax, and now have effectively denied the government the same taxes through their charitable trusts. A worthy goal, but their sheer hypocricy on that issue is truly astonishing.
Hi Again AL,
The Laffer curve is the relationship between tax rates and tax revenue. On one side of the bell shaped curve, increasing rates increases revenue and on the other side of the bell shaped curve decreasing rates increases revenue. Many reputable economists, including Arthur Laffer himself, believe the US government has crossed the hump of the bell and would see an increase in tax revenue by decreasing tax rates. However, not Laffer, or your so called reputable economists, or my reputable economists, or even any un-reputable economists know how to determine the hump with any precision.
The bell shaped curve is the answer to the other questions as well. Government spending can increase tax revenue to a point (economic stimulus) and then additional spending decreases tax revenue(waste). Government spending can also decrease deficits to a point and then additional government spending increases deficits.
Therefore, why not lower tax rates and take our chances with the results rather than raise tax rates and take our chances with the results since we do not have a way to determine the optimum point on any of these curves?
Common sense does apply, but simple sense does not.
Therefore, why not lower tax rates and take our chances with the results rather than raise tax rates and take our chances with the results since we do not have a way to determine the optimum point on any of these curves?
Because experience tells us that we are well below that point on the curve. How do we know that? Well, Bush has cut taxes repeated over the last 6 years. And they have NOT paid for themselves. Even economists like Greg Menkiw admit this. The data is clear. Our taxes are just not high enough so that lowering them pays for itself. There has been all kinds of stuff written on this point. It is not seriously in dispute.
When I see those who are making 250,000 a year in wages being called the ‘rich’ by the trustfund babies worht 50 million, but lacking a meaningful job, I get nauseous.
MTL, are you serious? How can you not realize that your beliefs and the policies you suppport are diametrically opposed. Republicans and the economists they tout believe that only consumption/wages should be taxed, not capital. That’s why they always push to get rid of capital gains taxes and the estate tax. They would ideally put 100% of the tax burden on wages and 0% on return of capital and inheritance. That policy enormously benefits those who acquire their wealth through inheretance or passive investment, i.e., the very people you claim make you nauseous. Don’t you get that? That’s why Buffet and Gates don’t support repeal of the Estate Tax.
‘How can you not realize that your beliefs and the policies you suppport are diametrically opposed.”
The one who is against taxation is the party I will support.
AL,
I am doing my best to give you every opportunity to make your point since you seem to have some understanding of economics and the Laffer curve. However, when you claim the Bush tax cuts have not paid for themselves, you must be talking about something other than tax revenue and projected deficits because tax revenues are up and projected deficits are down, which is a good trend and a good direction that should be continued by further tax cuts.
Even though there is tons of literature supporting tax rate cuts and plenty of gravitas in those supporting tax rate cuts, both are irrelevant to a thoughtful discussion since both are logical fallacies, as is the amount of literature opposing tax rate cuts and the stature of those opposing tax rate cuts.
You started by demanding evidence. I asked you for a little of your own evidence, and all I get is assertions based on personal opinion and the opinions of others. Is it asking too much of you to live by the standards you require of others?
Actually, I’m still trying to reconcile this staetement of AL’s:
“They would ideally put 100% of the tax burden on wages and 0% on return of capital and inheritance.”
The implication is that these are the two sources of revenue, wages v. capital and inheritance. Beyond this mistatement is some ‘voodoo theory’ about the republican agenda, that escapes me. Don’t bother digging yourself out on this AL, you have lost your way.
David,
From a good run down on the issue of whether tax cuts pay for themselves, I recommend this column.
I also note, again, that when you say things like “tax revenues are up and projected deficits are down” you’re not really establishing anything. First, tax revenues are up from last year, not in some absolute sense. And the rise from last year says nothing about the cause of this increase. The ecomony cycles back and forth even when tax rates remain unchanged.
mtl,
Regarding the various types of income, I suggest you go back and read what ALL prominent conservative economists have to say on this subject. They prefer a system that taxes only wages or consumption, but that doesn’t tax investment or inheritence income at all. That’s just a fact. And it’s the basic premise that drives GOP tax policy. It’s not an indefensible philosophy, but it does run strongly counter to your professed loathing of aristocratic wealth and preference for earned income.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax
6.2 Income tax
6.3 Retirement tax
6.4 Capital gains tax
6.5 Corporation tax
6.6 Poll tax
6.7 Excises
6.7.1 Purposes and effects of excises
6.8 Sales tax
6.9 Tariffs
6.10 Value added tax
6.11 Property taxes
6.12 Transfer taxes
6.13 Inheritance tax
6.14 Wealth (net worth) tax
6.15 Personal property tax
You are discussing 6.2 and 6.8 versus 6.4 and 6.13. There are a lot of other aspects of taxation that you do not address, in your over-simplification. I sincerely doubt you use of the universal ‘all’, but would still be moved by a link to a conservative who does espouse the theory as you present it.
For the record-you are arguing that the economy is cyclical and you can’t determine the effects of the tax cuts. Btu fi you are unable to determine the effect, then you can make no observation about it. I concede that there is no measure, but wonder how you can come to this conclusion that it is independent of changing the tax rates.
“I suggest you go back and read what ALL prominent conservative economists have to say on this subject.”
Who do you suggest?
Hi AL,
I agree with you that fluctuations in the economy, or economic cycles, are comprised of many factors besides government tax policy. I am not claiming a tax rate reduction will instantly improve the economy. However, you and your link are arguing a tax rate cut will not improve the lives of Americans. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you. Your link was a silly and wrong opinion piece.
Can you provide evidence that a tax rate cut will not improve the lives of Americans? If not, you should quit being so dogmatic in your claims.