[Shaudius]

Originally <a href='/showthread.php?p=15780706'>posted</a> on 08/25/2012:

Among other things, this is the liberal argument that decresed tax rates have no positive effect on economic health or tax revenue, which is just not true.

No its not. It is me saying, suppose I have $100, you take 10% of it, you got $10, then suppose tomorrow you say, I'm only gonna take 5% of it, you now only have $5. You are in an objectively worse state financially. You then argue that that's okay because you'll make up the difference because now I'll be able to grow my money more. In order for you to make up the difference I would need to make $200. If I only make $180 after you cut the rate of my money you're taking then you have lost revenue. My argument is, again, not that the Bush tax cuts didn't spur growth, my argument is instead that they only got us to some number like $180 and not to some number over $200 hence increasing the deficit.

In fact the main force behind tax revenue is the health of the economy, and economic growth. It's hard to argue that increased taxation leads to growth.

Where did I make that argument, my argument is that decreased taxes lead to decreased revenue which are only offset by additional growth from the tax cuts. The argument isn't that tax cuts don't spur growth the argument is that the Bush era tax cuts didn't spur enough growth to offset their cost hence adding to the deficit.

The premise is the Bush tax cuts cost 5.5% tax revenue and spurred some level of growth under 5.5%, which is objectively what happened unless you believe that the Bush era tax cuts kept us out of recession for multiple years.

You are free to make the argument that growth > increased deficit, but you can't have it both ways, if you're going to cut taxes to increase growth you're going to have to deal with the deficit that is created when the growth doesn't offset the cost, well I guess you don't but then you're just increasing the deficit which is exactly what happened.