And you have defeated your own argument. In the 3rd paragraph, he states that tax cuts do not pay for themselves. All the mumbo jumbo that follows in the article is just semantics to dig himself out of what he stated in paragraph 3: TAX CUTS DO NOT PAY FOR THEMSELVES.
We need 3 Distinctly separate currencies: National Dollar - Used and earned through commerce between people and companies. Limited for use and trade inside the US by its citizens and domestic companies. Tax Dollar - Used by businesses and agencies that are funded through taxing the National and World Dollars. ie. Govt, its contractors and employees. US World Dollars - Reserve Currency used around the world. aka The current Dollar. The National and Tax Dollars should be electronic and tied to SS# / FEIN with all transactions reported. Then we can easily control the flow and value and maintain balance.
The economy grew just fine when Bill Clinton raised taxes. This is because, without the gov't siphoning up all the debt like now, the private sector was able to obtain debt and use it to create economic activity way more efficiently than the gov't. It takes 3 or 4 times as much gov't spending/tax cuts to create the same economic activity as private sector spending.
Also, the Laffer curve has long been debunked as experimental, Voodoo Economics dreamed up to justify tax cuts. There has never been once instance where the Laffer curve has been shown to work without massive debt runups to compensate.
Gabfly, you are not paying attention and you do not understand what happened with GWB's 'tax cuts.' First, as I laid out above, the rebates and other cuts he started first with were Keynesian demand tax cuts and of course do not work...just like when Obama did it again with his Stimulus Fraud bill. Second the changes he made in dividend payments and capital gains did work and helped get us out of the recession that was in progress when he was elected. Third, most people forget that the same time that the Fed marginal rates were reduced down to 35% at the top, most states, the most populated states, raised thier taxes...so there was not really much change in the states where the majority of the highest income tax returns are filed. So, growth from that was less that it could have been...and then the states wasted the increased revenues they got and bloated thier budgets which we have to deal with now. Finally, you have to acknowledge that the Bush tax cuts were not permanent so taht instead of supporting permanent change they acted more like an option...the incentive was high in the early years and then it turned negative when the Democrates took over congress and promised that the tax cuts would be ended. You cannot dismiss this dynamic in the equity sell off and reduced economic activity leading up to the crises that came to its head in 2008. In any case revenue growth during GWB met all expectations and the increased deficits were from spending much more that was projected. If government spending was the secret then why don't you hold GWB up as an example of proper policy...if increased government spending is the secret to growth then you have to say that Bush did his part.
Endsong, you don' pay attention either...when Clinton 'raised taxes' he also liberalized trade by passing the Nafta free trade agreement and advanced the GAAT that liberalized world trade, at the same time he passed a revolutionary deregulation of the telecome industry that pushed rapid growth in the internet and tech sectors, at the same time he reduced the tax on real estate so that there was effectively no capital gains taxes on the sale of residences which pushed dramtic growth in housing, at the same time he reduced capital gains taxes which made it easier to raise venture capital for business on steroids becuase of all the above...the most powerful pro growth effect is in capital gains tax reduction....even Larry Summers knows that....and then Greenspan didn't start screwing up during most of this period...until late 1990's when he caused Asian Currency collapse that resuted in crash of tech bubble and manufacturing depression....but that became GWB's problem. The drag of the marginal rate increase was more than offset by these other supply side actions to promote production...its not all taxes. And of course it helped alot that the change in congress control to Republicans prevented the spending excesses that occurred both before and after Clinton....Clinton was a supply sider...he was the logical successor to Reagan...not Bush I or Bush II who were establishment ruling class Keynesian economic illiterates. It didn't matter that Clinto was an accidental supply sider...he was smart enough to go with what works. Also, when you compare marginal tax rates at different times in history you really should look at the number of people in the brackets during each time in order to be fair about who was paying what tax rate....$200,000 income rate in 1990 is way different than $200,000 income rate in 2010...or 80% rate on $200,000 in 1919, you have to ask the question of how many people there are at that rate at that time. Bracket creep by inflation is a tax increase.
But its tough even with if you give them 0% tax. When a chinese 15 year old is allowed to work for 1 dollar a day, no tax cut is enough to bring back manufacturing jobs.
But what about the dollar a day chinese,indian etc.. employees? How do you compete against that? How do you compete against Indian Engineers that earn 5-10K a year?
I also meant to imply that tax rates would go up, even higher than they are now when times are good. So in essence a tax policy that seeks to flatten economic cycles. So when we are staring down the barrel of economic disaster, kind of like right now, business and individuals would have lower taxes to at least look forward too, and when animal spirits have gone overboard, think 2004-2007, people and business' enthusiasm will be dampened by higher taxes. This would be a permanent policy of fluctuating tax rates, and I believe it would serve to calm the business and investing world.