Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: 50 years of tax cuts for the rich failed to trickle down, economics study says [View all]LetMyPeopleVote
(177,870 posts)29. Fresh evidence: Republicans' tax breaks didn't pay for themselves
There is no tax cut fairy and there is no evidence that tax cuts pay for themselves in the real world. Why does it matter that the Republicans' Trump-era tax breaks failed to pay for themselves, despite GOP promises? Several reasons, actually.
Link to tweet
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/fresh-evidence-republicans-tax-breaks-didnt-pay-rcna141882
The New York Times reported on the most rigorous and detailed study to date on the effects of the GOPs tax package and found that while the 2017 law delivered a modest pay bump for workers one that fell far short of the partys promises before the law passed those small benefits came at a high cost to the federal budget.
To be sure, these findings arent altogether surprising. Weve known for several years that the Trump-era tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations didnt pay for themselves. Weve also known for quite some time that this question has been tested and re-tested, and the results are always the same......
So why does the evidence matter? Several reasons, actually.
First, theres the question of accountability. The Republicans who claim to care deeply about fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets insisted that their tax giveaways wouldnt add to the deficit that they occasionally pretend to take seriously. The public, when assessing these policymakers work, deserves to know that the GOP officials got this important question wrong.
Second, credibility matters, too. Republicans who are inexplicably enjoying a sizable advantage in polling on economic policy, despite the realities of recent decades claim to know what theyre talking about. When compelling evidence to the contrary comes to the fore, it warrants attention.
Third, at the heart of Republicans thinking about economic policy isnt just the discredited belief that giving tax breaks to the wealthy produces broad prosperity, but also that the party need not concern itself with paying for the giveaways. Ideally, when presented with decades worth of evidence disproving their core assumption, the party would reconsider this misguided belief.
But perhaps most important of all is the fact that GOP officials are eager to repeat their mistake. In fact, The Washington Post reported in January that Donald Trump has privately told his allies that he is keenly interested in cutting corporate tax rates again, despite the failures of his 2017 effort.
The corporate tax cuts came nowhere close to paying for themselves, as conservatives insisted they would. Instead, they are adding more than $100 billion a year to Americas $34 trillion-and-growing national debt, according to the quartet of researchers from Princeton University, the University of Chicago, Harvard University and the Treasury Department.
To be sure, these findings arent altogether surprising. Weve known for several years that the Trump-era tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations didnt pay for themselves. Weve also known for quite some time that this question has been tested and re-tested, and the results are always the same......
So why does the evidence matter? Several reasons, actually.
First, theres the question of accountability. The Republicans who claim to care deeply about fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets insisted that their tax giveaways wouldnt add to the deficit that they occasionally pretend to take seriously. The public, when assessing these policymakers work, deserves to know that the GOP officials got this important question wrong.
Second, credibility matters, too. Republicans who are inexplicably enjoying a sizable advantage in polling on economic policy, despite the realities of recent decades claim to know what theyre talking about. When compelling evidence to the contrary comes to the fore, it warrants attention.
Third, at the heart of Republicans thinking about economic policy isnt just the discredited belief that giving tax breaks to the wealthy produces broad prosperity, but also that the party need not concern itself with paying for the giveaways. Ideally, when presented with decades worth of evidence disproving their core assumption, the party would reconsider this misguided belief.
But perhaps most important of all is the fact that GOP officials are eager to repeat their mistake. In fact, The Washington Post reported in January that Donald Trump has privately told his allies that he is keenly interested in cutting corporate tax rates again, despite the failures of his 2017 effort.
Tax cuts are not magical and do not pay for themselves. The current deficits are due in large part to TFG's tax cuts. The next battle will be on to whether to extend some or all of these tax cuts when they expire
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
30 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
50 years of tax cuts for the rich failed to trickle down, economics study says [View all]
brooklynite
Apr 2024
OP
It took a study! ... Should have read, 'Area man still waiting for trickle down.'
Hotler
Apr 2024
#1
We all knew this. As one poster said earlier, they had to have a study to learn this? I think that we're
SWBTATTReg
Apr 2024
#4
Billionaires are collectively adding $2.7 billion to their fortunes daily. So. Trickle down.
Kid Berwyn
Apr 2024
#7