Since the plan is revenue neutral, for every “winner” (say, corporate tax is reduced) there *has* to be a “loser”
A smart tax plan that puts the incentives in the right place can allow the economy to grow, so there is more money. People get wealthier, so they are better off after taxes under one plan than another.
Reagan drastically cut tax rates, and revenue went up.
We could increase income tax rates to 90%, and the amount of revenue generated would probably not go up, but people would be a LOT worse off.
>> You have missed the whole point.
No, I get the point the Cain campaign is *trying* to make.
I just can’t make the dots connect.
The supposed benefit relies too much on “beliefs” and “feelings” about how things will shake out, and too little on the mathematics and economics of it.
But the downside — giving the Federal monster another tax stream to play with — scares hell out of me. And that fear has a sound basis in a hundred years of actual history.