I'd consider it, but it's just not the case. I don't have a degree in economics. But I have had at least one (don't recall) or more economics classes. Here is a point you seem unfamiliar with. Even Ivy league educated professional economists don't always agree with each other about the same issues we discuss here almost daily. But then of course to you the only economist worth their salt - is one that agrees with you.
did you read that yourself. I present proof .. you present models. Here is the largest crock shit I have read on slate recently ... this is a quote... Let me explain that for those who are not used to understanding complex models. "Both the Kennedy and Mellon tax-cut packages actually lowered overall revenue, relative to a baseline where the tax cuts did not happen. " 1. Slate is now citing fantasy... because the tax cuts did happen. 2. Even according to your bullshit... the tax cuts did raise revenue... just not as much as slate would have preferred .. in slates liberal fantasy world. In the real world tax cuts may have induced growth... but we know revenues went up. In slates fantasy world... the economy improved - tax cuts did not happen and revenues were even higher. That is the problem with you tax and spenders... you look at models of utopian fantasy and then pretend they are real... we review real world facts.
You clearly don't recall the content either. No. On the matter of tax cuts effectively paying for themselves, no legitimate economist with serious credentials buys it because the facts and history do not bear it out. It's a wish and a dream, but it's not a fact. It is partisan faith-based balderdash. Just take a few moments to read the link that Ricter kindly provided: http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...x_cuts_ever_increase_government_revenues.html
Are you legally insane? Did you read these parts: "...Both the Kennedy and Mellon tax-cut packages actually lowered overall revenue, relative to a baseline where the tax cuts did not happen. They just increased some receipts from richer families. Take a Congressional Budget Office analysis of the Kennedy-era cuts. No studies "showed that the increased economic activity generated by the tax cut raised revenues and lowered countercyclical transfer payments enough to make the tax-rate reductions self-financing," it wrote in 1978. "Instead, the models showed a net increase in the federal deficit, after three years, of $5 billion to $13 billion," versus models where the tax cuts never took effect. Shorthand: The tax cuts did pay for themselves a little bit by inducing growth, but not nearly enough to pay for themselves entirely..." "...The Irish case also offers little support for the idea that tax cuts always pay for themselves by goosing growth. The cut in the corporate tax rate did not aid Irish companies' bottom lines so much as it attracted extraordinary amounts of foreign capital. International firms like Pfizer relocated their European headquarters to the country to take advantage of the low tax rates. All those new companies contributed to an expanded corporate tax base. (Now, Ireland, suffering from crippling debts, is scared to raise the tax rate, which might encourage the companies to leave.)" Seriously, are you on medication?
Like I said: "But then of course to you the only economist worth their salt - is one that agrees with you. "
Be an ignoramus if you must. The only "economists" who support the idea that tax cuts pay for themselves are the brazenly and opnely partisan, so it feeds into their ideology. But it is strictly faith-based because it has no meaningful precedent. Did you take a moment to read Ricter's link? It presents the historical context of the only instances where they were *thought* to work, but actually didn't. Seriously, stick to what you know.
Listen moron - that was my point... facts which show -- after cuts revenues went up.... facts compared to liberal fantasy models. your article said this... ------------------ "In all three cases, the tax cuts likely helped to increase tax receipts. How do lower taxes raise the amount the government takes in?" ------------------ but you missed the plain english... why? Modern day liberalism... its a disease.
You have to use models to analyze for causality, for mechanism. Even the two variable one relationship expression, "tax cuts raise revenues" is a model. But of course many other relevant variables exist, and if they're not properly taken into account somehow... well, in that example, post hoc ergo propter hoc.