i'm pretty sure i just demonstrated to you that it mathematically doesn't work out.I can claim that the Bush tax cuts protected the citizens of the US from zebra stampede death, since there haven't been any such deaths in the US since the cuts, however, the two are not related.
Regardless, it is ludicrous to believe that tax cuts always lead to revenue increases. Simple logic should tell you this.
If you have a tax rate of 50% and you cut it to 25%. You'll need the gdp to double to make up for the lost revenue. Possible. Unlikely but possible. But if tax cuts always lead to increased revenue let's drop that even further. Let's go to 10%. We'll only need the gdp to increase 500%. That could happen, right? we should really be raking the money in now. But what if we do it further? Let's cut it to .01%. We'd only need a gdp 5000 times what it started out at. But if tax rates always drive revenue up, well, that seems like the way to go.
can tax cuts spur the economy and result in growth that leads to greater revenues to the government? yes. Do they always? no, and it's silly to think so.
Well give us an example when it was tried by an Administration and failed.
I will give you the complete list of those who did it, and you tell us where it failed to soonafter help generate record Federal Tax Receipt and record GDP.:
Harding
JFK
Reagan
Bush
Now, if you can't answer, why not remain on the sidelines when you don't know what the fuck you are talking about?
but let's put it in real terms.
if i cut tax rates from 90% to 45% i've increased the take home of every person by 550%. That could result in enough growth in the economy to increase revenue. But let's say i started at 9% and cut to 4.5%. I cut the tax rate in half, but people's take home would only increase by $4.50 per $100 earned. Do you see that increase doubling the gdp?
Pretty same to assume you won't get an answer to that question.