Republican tax cut sham-cycle

If Republicans actually expect lower taxes to lead to higher revenue, how come they never promise us what they intend to do with all that overflowing surplus: expand programs, lower taxes even more? We know it wont be the first with Republicans — do they have some “crossover point” in mind for the second; a specific lower tax point at which they admit lower taxes will actually begin to lead to lower revenues?  Just to be scientific about it.

Be interesting to inquire of them about that point, loudly and in public. :-)–

What will really happen of course is that revenues will take a dive — at which point the Republicans can be expected to scream bloody murder about the growing deficit on our great grandchildren and the "desperate"  need to cut back programs that assist lower income people — instead of simply raising taxes back up to where they had been all along on higher income people. And then they can re-initiate the sham-cycle over (and over) again as many times as they can get away for it.

Be interesting to interrogate the Republican party loudly and in public about what their response to lower tax revenue might actually be. :-O

Actually GW Bush did say he would use the added revenue to pay down the deficit -- which is funny because, when he replaced Bill Clinton, surplus tax revenues (much fueled by the dot-com boom) were already paying down the deficit.  GW cut taxes and revenue dived ...

... while the excess tax savings the rich could not spend on themselves ended up being loaned to others thru loony lending schemes that fueled much of the real estate and stock market busts -- and the deepest recession since the Great Depression.
 * * * * * * * * * * * *

See Barry Ritholtz [and Wall Street Journal] seriously put the lie to Republican tax cuts:
http://ritholtz.com/2017/11/tax-cuts-dont-reduce-debt/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheBigPicture+%28The+Big+Picture%29