I implied nothing of the sort. Like most tax changes, it has more than one goal.
Yes, of course. Let us not use the best and most relevant evidence, let us instead use Latin. That makes good sense. You asked if I had evidence and I provided some.
It was evidence at all. Just because something occurred after something doesn't mean it caused it (that's what the Latin means).
So then you might stop claiming that the "Record" (that wasn't a record) job growth under Reagan at this point in his administration was related to his policies?
OK then.
So let's punch up the evidence a bit more: The tax cut put approximately $1,000 per person into the hands of the middle class. The average amount of savings has not increased by that amount over the past year.
Where else would you like to believe the money went if not into consumption and not into savings?
Rising stock market values could have caused the rise in consumer spending just as easily. Probably more easily
A stock market wealth effect for the middle and lower middle class? Nope. I don't buy it. Especially since the DOW is pretty much sideways since the payroll tax cut went into effect, while consumer expenditures are up.
The evidence of the Reagan tax cuts is far superior to this piece of shit.
WHere did the money go? How about paying down debt?
Household Debt Falls by 0.6% in Third Quarter - Bloomberg
What could have caused the increase in spending? Yes, the wealth effect. Middle class people have 401ks, and while they can't tap the money really it still provides a wealth effect. Maybe it was merely spending returning to normal as people had put off buying major goods? Maybe it was warmer weather that allowed more shopping days?