The Derp
Gold Member
- Apr 12, 2017
- 9,620
- 661
- 205
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #121
Well, for starters, there is no tax cut for top marginal rates. That's what generates growth revenue.
No, it doesn't. Not even close. Bush cut the top rate and revenue for 2001-3 was below revenue from 2000. It took a mortgage bubble for revenue to finally surpass the level it hit in 2000.
So you took three steps back to take one step forward. How many steps does that leave you behind?
If we were cutting that back to the Reagan era of 28%, I would be on board with the plan, but that's not in the works. I also don't like this notion of "revenue neutral" tax policy because that's not a tax cut. If we're going to collect the same amount of dollars under the new plan as the old, how have we cut taxes? We've simply changed who pays the taxes. I want REAL tax cuts and REAL spending cuts.
But you don't know why. That's what you're not explaining. You're not explaining how or why you think cutting taxes for the rich will lead to all this magical growth when it never has before.