4 ms·

> What if that's because "right-leaning" information is truly wrong? What if it's not? > What if cutting taxes doesn't pay for itself? If only we had some ki

> What if that's because "right-leaning" information is truly wrong? What if it's not? > What if cutting taxes doesn't pay for itself? If only we had some kind of experiments in the 20th century that showed what systems lead to impoverishment and hunger. Or better yet two centuries of scientific inquiries and refutations of crank economics on logical grounds. Like you know, Marxism, whose incoherency is shown by left, right, and center authors alike. Or imagine, we knew MMT is neither a theory nor modern but a reincarnation of some disproved ideas of old.

tstrimple 5y ago
Here's study analyzing 20 years of tax cuts and is pretty conclusive in that they never pay for themselves. https://www.crfb.org/papers/tax-cuts-dont-pay-themselves https://www.crfb.org/papers/tax-cuts-dont-pay-themselves I guess this is part of the "Marxist" academia that can't be trusted because they just have it out for conservative thought?
- janeroe 5y ago
  Oh, I thought your "tax cuts not paying for themselves" is a figure of speech. And that's a literal quote. What is it supposed to mean? Like if you steal less from the people, you get less if that's your only source?
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    "Tax cuts pay for themselves" has been the conservative justification for how cutting taxes on the wealthy is fiscally conservative and actually benefits everyone, for ~4 decades.
    - janeroe 5y ago
      I'm not an American so have no this Democrats vs. Republicans dichotomy, cheering or deriding the very same decisions depending on whether they're coming from "our" or "their" people (as in "He's a Son of a Bitch, but he's OUR Son of A Bitch"). I can afford to be more consistent. What attracted my attention to your post specifically (knock at conservative values aside) is the mentioning of tax cuts as if that's something terribly wrong. It's not. The paper you've linked that allegedly is supposed to impress Americans, wouldn't anyone else. Authors' assumption for some reason (was it what Republicans promoted?) is that government doesn't have to be more thrifty and less wasteful. It reads: look, the government was just an inefficient juggernaut as usual, and the tax cuts put this behavior under risk. Insatiable appetites of governments aside, tax cuts do pay off. And not only economically, but also in terms of bringing greater justice and better satisfaction of all but communists.
  - jonathankoren 5y ago
    As an old person who actually remembers when George Bush (the dad) coined the term “voodoo economics” during the 1980 primary against Reagan, I’ll explain the central thesis to what backers call “supply side” economics. It’s basically the same logic as selling merchandise at low cost. How does the government make money? Volume! Seriously. The argument is that cutting taxes will spur economic growth that will grow the economy so much, that the loss in revenues will be made up by economic growth. i.e Tax cuts pay for themselves. There is actually ample evidence that this doesn’t actually work, or at least hasn’t worked in 40 years. (Diminishing returns and whatnot.) I’d go so far as to argue that some supporters of this policy even know this because it gave cover for their real goal of simply cutting social programs under the guise of “we can’t afford it”.
    - janeroe 5y ago
      We are looking at it from different perspectives. You from the central planner's one. I'm from the position of an acting person, someone who doesn't believe anyone owes them anything, but at the same time preferring to keep what's earned. Someone who's not bought into redistribution programs that spend $4 to redistribute each $1 (actual research for the US), or any involuntary redistribution schemes for that matter. > The argument is that cutting taxes will spur economic growth So what do I care for some abstract growth? If my well-being isn't rising, and it isn't if you take away through taxes, excises, indirect taxes half of what I earn with hard toil, not interested. > cover for their real goal of simply cutting social programs under the guise of “we can’t afford it” And that's a good thing.
      - jonathankoren 5y ago
        You are putting a lot of words in my mouth and speaking with a lot of assumed authority for someone that just admitted that they don’t understand and most influential public policy in a more than a generation. It is the central economic dogma of a major political party. I find this doubly ironic because you go on to spout positions congruent with that party. Get off Parler, or whatever and read a history book, because Reagan’s economic policies echo even today. Even without a labeled time axis, there are countless economic charts where you can easily pick out 1981.

tstrimple 5y ago

Here's study analyzing 20 years of tax cuts and is pretty conclusive in that they never pay for themselves. https://www.crfb.org/papers/tax-cuts-dont-pay-themselves https://www.crfb.org/papers/tax-cuts-dont-pay-themselves I guess this is part of the "Marxist" academia that can't be trusted because they just have it out for conservative thought?

janeroe 5y ago
Oh, I thought your "tax cuts not paying for themselves" is a figure of speech. And that's a literal quote. What is it supposed to mean? Like if you steal less from the people, you get less if that's your only source?
- ethbr0 5y ago
  "Tax cuts pay for themselves" has been the conservative justification for how cutting taxes on the wealthy is fiscally conservative and actually benefits everyone, for ~4 decades.
  - janeroe 5y ago
    I'm not an American so have no this Democrats vs. Republicans dichotomy, cheering or deriding the very same decisions depending on whether they're coming from "our" or "their" people (as in "He's a Son of a Bitch, but he's OUR Son of A Bitch"). I can afford to be more consistent. What attracted my attention to your post specifically (knock at conservative values aside) is the mentioning of tax cuts as if that's something terribly wrong. It's not. The paper you've linked that allegedly is supposed to impress Americans, wouldn't anyone else. Authors' assumption for some reason (was it what Republicans promoted?) is that government doesn't have to be more thrifty and less wasteful. It reads: look, the government was just an inefficient juggernaut as usual, and the tax cuts put this behavior under risk. Insatiable appetites of governments aside, tax cuts do pay off. And not only economically, but also in terms of bringing greater justice and better satisfaction of all but communists.
- jonathankoren 5y ago
  As an old person who actually remembers when George Bush (the dad) coined the term “voodoo economics” during the 1980 primary against Reagan, I’ll explain the central thesis to what backers call “supply side” economics. It’s basically the same logic as selling merchandise at low cost. How does the government make money? Volume! Seriously. The argument is that cutting taxes will spur economic growth that will grow the economy so much, that the loss in revenues will be made up by economic growth. i.e Tax cuts pay for themselves. There is actually ample evidence that this doesn’t actually work, or at least hasn’t worked in 40 years. (Diminishing returns and whatnot.) I’d go so far as to argue that some supporters of this policy even know this because it gave cover for their real goal of simply cutting social programs under the guise of “we can’t afford it”.
  - janeroe 5y ago
    We are looking at it from different perspectives. You from the central planner's one. I'm from the position of an acting person, someone who doesn't believe anyone owes them anything, but at the same time preferring to keep what's earned. Someone who's not bought into redistribution programs that spend $4 to redistribute each $1 (actual research for the US), or any involuntary redistribution schemes for that matter. > The argument is that cutting taxes will spur economic growth So what do I care for some abstract growth? If my well-being isn't rising, and it isn't if you take away through taxes, excises, indirect taxes half of what I earn with hard toil, not interested. > cover for their real goal of simply cutting social programs under the guise of “we can’t afford it” And that's a good thing.
    - jonathankoren 5y ago
      You are putting a lot of words in my mouth and speaking with a lot of assumed authority for someone that just admitted that they don’t understand and most influential public policy in a more than a generation. It is the central economic dogma of a major political party. I find this doubly ironic because you go on to spout positions congruent with that party. Get off Parler, or whatever and read a history book, because Reagan’s economic policies echo even today. Even without a labeled time axis, there are countless economic charts where you can easily pick out 1981.