Puffer Fish wrote:If tax cuts boost economic growth, then the added taxes will do just the opposite when it comes time to pay it back.
Taking on debt to give tax cuts may not be such a good idea.
How can you use "more economic growth" to justify tax cuts when those tax cuts are paid for by more borrowed money?
And here's something to consider:
There were six times in US history in which budget surpluses were achieved for long enough to retire a significant amount of debt. Five of those were followed by depressions, the last of which culminated in the Great Depression of the 1930s.
When you start taking money out of the economy to pay down debt (either through higher taxes or less government spending) that starts causing the economy to contract.
What I'm saying is it's going to be very difficult to pay down this debt, and in the meantime time just the costs of servicing it are going to eat away a substantial chunk of the government budget.
Of course the root of the problem wasn't trying to get out of debt but getting into it in the first place.
You are making an assumption that it not supported by economic history.
Your assumption is taught by mainstream economists, but it is still just an assumption. And it still is not supported by economic history.
IIRC, the only nation to ever have paid off its entire debt was the US Gov. in the early 1800s. It could do this because it was by far and away the richest nation the world has ever seen. Why, you ask? Because it "owned" all the land from the Atlantic to the Mississippi. All it had to do was steal it from the natives. This was very easy because of its tech advantage and the sicknesses that the natives died from. This was very unique in history. OTOH, right after the US made the final payment, it fell into (what some say was) the worst economic depression that it has ever had, and only got out of it when it started a war with Mexico which it paid for by selling bonds which just put the US back into debt. It has never paid off its debt in the 173 years since then.
. . . Another example is England, aka the UK. It has had a national debt since 1694 and never paid it down much in any of those 326 years.
. . . Nations cancel their debts (example Spain in the 16th and 17th cent) or just die to be replaced by a new gov. that doesn't assume their debts (a form of cancelation, examples are France after the Fr. Rev. and Russia after its rev.).
So, I deny the truth of your assumption. The US will never again have a surplus to pay down the debt.
OTOH, I agree with the others that Repud tax cuts are just give aways to the 1% and are justified by the lie that it will trickle down to the economy as a whole. Since Reagan there has been no trickle down because labor unions have been crushed.
. . . So, I do agree that tax cuts don't make economic sense, if the goal really was to help the people as a whole. But, that isn't the goal. The goal is to give mega $$ to the 1% and to make the Dems cut programs that support the people or at least stop them from expanding programs or starting new ones. The Repud tax cuts *have* achieved those goals.