Not if you read the fine print. According to an analysis by the Treasury Department, Bush's tax cuts may raise total national output of goods and services by 0.7%.
But is that enough to pay for the tax cuts? Not even close. An 0.7 percent increase in economic output would lead to increased tax payments of $29 billion.
Sounds impressive, right? Wrong. Making the tax cuts permanent would reduce federal revenues in 2016 by $314 billion. That is more than 10 times what the Treasury analysis suggests tax cuts would generate in increased tax revenue. While trickle-down economics might make for good politics, it's bad economics. Growth is great, but at what price?
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Mike the Mad Biologist links to a piece arguing that Social Security is fine thank you very much. Rumor to the contrary is pure political propaganda, and the fact that many young people think they'll never see a dime is a result of simple fearmongering.
I am sorry to say that they're not right.…
I finally figured out what the underlying philosophy for the banking bailout is (other than TEH STOOPID): it's supply-side/trickle down economics. First, the latest insult by way of Chris in Paris (italics mine):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/29/AR20081…
U.S. banks…
The Wall Street Journal reports an estimate of the economic impact of the Human Genome Project (italics mine):
Of the $3.8 billion federal funding for the human-genome project, $2.8 billion originated at the U.S. National Institutes of Health, and the rest at the Department of Energy.
That $3.8…
Despite glowing reviews from the House GOP about their health care bill, the people that actually crunch the numbers say it’ll likely mean millions more uninsured and higher premiums for people in poorer health. Now comes more bad news: it’ll also result in more than 900,000 lost jobs and billions…