Well, one final note before I go.
The notion that "taxes don't pay for themselves"...what does that mean, exactly? Even if taxes don't effect wealth creation (they do), if I keep 10 cents of every dollar i earn, instead of paying it to Government, in the form of taxes, how does that money saved "not pay for itself"? I have the money in my pocket to spend on goods and services I need, instead of the Government doing it for me. How could the Government do it any more efficiently than myself? I keep the 10 cents. They have to collect it (which costs 2 cents), plus they've got a massive overhead, employees, pensions, salaries, budgets, buildings all to "administrate" that 10 cents, before it even goes out the door, to pay for the same services, I'll receive, eventually?
The premise central to the notion "tax cuts don't pay for themselves" is a logical fallacy. It assumes that Government revenue should be held constant, when taxes are reduced. But that's not the case, at all. When people are taxed less, the need for Government services becomes less, because people can finance their own needs instead of having the middleman (Government) do it for them. Therefore, there is no reason to maintain that bloated Government at the size and scope it is today, when taxes are cut. Cut taxes, then cut Government. It's that simple. The money not spent in taxes, is then freed up for people to spend on themselves, thus relieving the need for a bloated nanny-state to do it on their behalf. So at the least, tax cuts are revenue neutral, after cutting the excess bureaucracy.
The notion that "taxes don't pay for themselves"...what does that mean, exactly? Even if taxes don't effect wealth creation (they do), if I keep 10 cents of every dollar i earn, instead of paying it to Government, in the form of taxes, how does that money saved "not pay for itself"? I have the money in my pocket to spend on goods and services I need, instead of the Government doing it for me. How could the Government do it any more efficiently than myself? I keep the 10 cents. They have to collect it (which costs 2 cents), plus they've got a massive overhead, employees, pensions, salaries, budgets, buildings all to "administrate" that 10 cents, before it even goes out the door, to pay for the same services, I'll receive, eventually?
The premise central to the notion "tax cuts don't pay for themselves" is a logical fallacy. It assumes that Government revenue should be held constant, when taxes are reduced. But that's not the case, at all. When people are taxed less, the need for Government services becomes less, because people can finance their own needs instead of having the middleman (Government) do it for them. Therefore, there is no reason to maintain that bloated Government at the size and scope it is today, when taxes are cut. Cut taxes, then cut Government. It's that simple. The money not spent in taxes, is then freed up for people to spend on themselves, thus relieving the need for a bloated nanny-state to do it on their behalf. So at the least, tax cuts are revenue neutral, after cutting the excess bureaucracy.
