One sad thing is that people say Reagan did his tax cuts based on saying we could have our cake and eat it to. I don't think he ever did that. Reagan said we needed to cut government. He wanted to cut governments "allowance." Unfortunately he was never successful in doing that.CID1990 wrote:Its true - tax cuts will always increase the deficit without concurrent spending cuts. You are correct that history shows this to be true every time.∞∞∞ wrote: It's not even that most economists predicted it...
...it's that history itself shows this is true. Every. Single. Time.
And yet tomorrow we'll have Cons tell us that slashing taxes for corporations and the wealthy will super-boost the economy for the average Joe. And your average Joe will - once again - fall for it.
Its too bad this is the only ideological item where you aren’t ignoring history.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But I was an alive adult at the time who voted for Reagan both times and I don't think he ever claimed that we could cut taxes and get MORE revenue than we would have so we could keep right on spending at the same level or even at a greater one.
To me there are valid reasons, mostly philosophical ones, for cutting taxes dramatically. But the idea that it's going to mean more revenue than we would have had otherwise is not one of them.
I mean, I think there is a point at which taxes could be so high that cutting them would increase revenue over what it would've been. But I don't think we've been anywhere near that point in my lifetime.