My point is that it's the taxes that are not justified and a justification for tax-cuts is never needed. Anyone who wants my money is going to have to ask me politely and be very convincing. I don't need to explain nothin'.
I don't know why I answer your pings since, as often as not, you respond with exaggeration, if not outright insult. I have never stated that we should always have a balanced budget, much less that we should pay off the entire debt. Regarding tax cuts, I've simply said that I don't believe that the government should have implemented large, intended-to-be-permanent tax cuts in a time of war and when they are projecting that the public debt will reach 250% of GDP by 2075 (see the first table and graph at http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/pro2006.html). At the very least, they should reinstate PAY-GO and pay for any spending or tax cuts that they feel are necessary.
You, on the other hand, appear to have a truly extreme position. You state that "a justification for tax-cuts is never needed". Hence, if we each paid one dollar per year in taxes, a further tax cut would require no justification. How would we pay for our government, including our forces in Iraq? I assume that you would suggest that we just borrow it. How would we pay the interest on the exploding debt? Just borrow the interest payments, I assume.
Regarding whether or not I will accept the article as proof, please point out the proof in the article. Now, let's stay focused on the fact that I was asking for proof that "any major cut in income tax rates has ever paid for itself". The closest thing that I can see as "proof" is Chart 6. If this is the "proof", the analysis at http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/taxcuts.html deals with it.
Yowsuh! Either you got up real early or were up way too late with that one --no matter. Good to hear from you and a very Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.
As usual, I'm all confused. Do you accept the Laffer model or not? When I wrote my post 13 I was under the impression that you considered the max revenue/equilibrium idea to be free lunch/bogus and that there was absolutely no input that you'd ever accept as proof that the model was in fact, useful. However, from your post 15 I seem to gather that you feel I was judging you unfairly. I'd very much like to know which is what-- please tell me what you think of it and the article that started this thread.
