|
|
|
|
|
|
by stevenwoo
2355 days ago
|
|
|
Not replying but questioning your question - why isn't the results of multiple attempts at tax cuts at state (Kansas) and federal level(Reagan/Bush/Trump in USA) enough evidence, would someone in favor of such tax cuts be coming at the facts with something like "No true Scotsman"? All of the top matches for stories about tax cut results end up on progressive or non libertarian sites. The architect (maybe the author for the textbook on Reaganomics) for trickle down tax cuts wrote an editorial which is not academic but still:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/09/27/tax-cut-fe... |
|
|
Now most economists (including a recently published and definitive 65 year study of tax cuts) will tell you that those tax cuts did NOT cause the economic growth.
This is a case of academics fighting what people saw with their eyes and felt with their pocket books, so this argument will never die no matter how many papers are published "debunking" it. I have a hard time believing the economists myself having lived through all but Kennedy's tax cut, but it may be so.
Also, the person above was not talking about trickle-down, which is easier to debunk. I would definitely agree it is pretty clear that in most all cases the rich get richer when taxes are substantially lowered and very little trickles down. Trickle down is easier to "disprove" than a connection between tax cuts and growth.
Kennedy's tax cut and resultant economic growth appeared to help the middle class more than the others, but that was before we went off the gold standard and productivity and wages rose together.
And yes what happened in Kansas is sad. You can have very low taxes, but without something to attract talented people and businesses to your state, they don't do much good. No one is going to relocate to the middle of nowhere just to enjoy a modest tax benefit, and if you are a corporation you will likely just incorporate in Delaware anyway so why bother with Kansas?