Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
You were right on the data, I was right that supply-side theory does not go as far as to say that the cuts pay for themselves.
|
Next time you do google-fu, consider going past the first link. Especially if it's from the Cato Institute.
The second link -- not necessarily any less biased -- has a precisely contrary account:
- When President Reagan took office in 1981, he quickly succeeded in passing substantial "supply-side" cuts in both individual and corporate income taxes. He predicted that the 1981 tax cuts would “pay for themselves” through higher investment and faster growth in productivity and incomes. Once enacted, the 1981 tax cuts opened up wide budget deficits (6% of gross domestic product, the largest peacetime deficit in history), leading Congress and the president to agree to substantially increase taxes on corporations in 1982 and on payrolls in 1983. Although those measures helped to narrow the budget deficit, large deficits persisted and further major tax hikes were adopted in 1990 and 1993.
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/we...shots_06162004
eta: The Bush Admin went a lot further. According to Cheney, tax cuts not only pay for themselves, but increase revenues to government.
“Eliminating the deficit is an important goal and the president’s plan to expand the economy ultimately will reduce the deficit. … The president’s growth package will reduce the tax burden on the American people by $98 billion this year, $670 billion over the next 10 years. But the actual impact on the deficit will be considerably smaller than the static projections, because the president’s package will generate new growth, it will expand the tax base and thus increase tax revenue to the federal government ultimately [emphasis added].” Transcript of Cheney speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, January 10, 2003.
To get to that you need to look at the fifth or sixth google result, and even read some footnotes.
