This was settled in the 80’s. Reagan tax cuts led to higher tax revenues. Libs cried and cried that the country could not afford tax cuts (similar to your argument) during a recession but they were wrong just like you. I have never gotten a job from a poor person. All my jobs came from one a private employer risking his capital in hope of earning profits and paying taxes. Carter strangled big business which resulted in less profits/less tax revenues. Reagan took the Feds boot off the throat of business and let them thrive with more profits/increased tax revenues.
” Reagan tax cuts led to higher tax revenues. “
Actually they didn’t, and moreover Reagan’s economists never claimed that the tax cuts would result in higher revenues. This is dealt with extensively in Martin Anderson’s memoir ‘Revolution’. Anderson was one of Reagan’s principle economic advisors and helped design and implement the Reagan economic program.
The tax cuts did perform as the Reagan economic team expected: the tax cuts stimulated sufficient economic growth to offset a large portion of the revenue loss that static analysis predicted. Something over 60 cents of each dollar cut was recouped through growth. The sole instance of tax cuts generating enough new revenue ‘to pay for themselves’ was in the case of capital gains tax cuts, which ironically were put into effect by Jimmy Carter. A detailed study of the results of the Reagan tax cuts can be found in Lawrence Lindsey’s ‘The Growth Experiment’. Lindsey’s study validated the actual forecasts of the Reagan economic team, but not the claim that ‘tax cuts led to higher revenues.’ That idea has achieved the status of ‘truth’ largely from being endlessly repeated by talk show hosts, whose idea of economic analysis seems to consist of subtracting the gross tax receipts of 1981 from 1989.