Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
C'mon. You weren't born yesterday. They would cut taxes more if they could. It's their raison d'etre.
No. Tax cuts do not pay for themselves. The loss of revenues from the diminished taxes collected when there is less growth will be far, far less than the lost revenue from collecting less in revenues.
Indeed.
|
But they're not, so it's not part of this discussion. Left to do what they like, the Dems would spend more. But you don't see me criticizing them for that here, in this finite discussion.
That's a projection you cannot support. You have no idea what the removal of that money from the economy would do in terms of decreased economic activity. This economy is amazingly fragile. The negative multiplier effect of any pullback in consumption could create a decrease in revenue far exceeding the tax cuts. This is why even Obama and the Dems, no doubt suppressing a gag reflex, are open to an across the board extension. (By saying this, I am not arguing that tax cuts pay for themselves. I don't buy that any more than you do. But I think this is a unique instance where the lapse of a tax cut could have disastrous results.)
If you agree with my last point, how do reach the conclusion we nevertheless need to roll back all of the Bush tax cuts? (Keep in mind, I'm not GOP Orthodox on this... I personally think that the safe play is to raise the bar to $500-750K.)
