Okay, okay, I get it. E. J. Dionne thinks that tax cuts are a distraction from the graver problems facing the country:
It is a victory for Republicans that the political conversation — when it’s not being hijacked by President Trump’s assorted outbursts and outrages — is focused on tax cuts. No matter how critical the coverage gets, the sheer amount of attention risks sending a message that taxes are the most important issue confronting the country.
This is entirely wrong, and it’s essential to challenge the whole premise of the debate. The United States does not need tax cuts now. Reducing government revenue at this moment will do far more harm than good. Conservatives are proving definitively that they don’t care in the least about deficits. And their claims that tax cuts will unleash some sort of economic miracle have been proved false again and again and again.
However, the only thing in his column that he advocates is…a tax cut:
Meanwhile, as Dylan Matthews reported on Vox, Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) have introduced a bill that would dramatically expand the child tax credit to $3,600 a year per child for those age 0 to 5, and $3,000 a year for those 6 to 18. To direct the most assistance to the poor and the less affluent parts of the middle class, the credit begins gradually to phase out for incomes of single parents at $75,000 a year and married couples at $110,000.
The plan, Matthews writes, would cut child poverty in the country almost in half, from 16.1 to 8.9 percent. The cost: roughly $1 trillion over a decade, as against the $1.5 trillion Republicans claim would be the net price of their tax cuts after they are done shuffling the tax code around.
I would have been delighted if Mr. Dionne had told us what he thinks the graver problems facing the country are but he doesn’t even drop any hints. Russian disinformation? North Korean nuclear weapons? What?
Heaven knows I recognize that every post can’t be about everything. At least it should be about something.
I don’t suppose government spending could be reduced, or throttled down. That appears to be a law of physics.
I was wondering. Can anyone show me an instance where a tax cut resulted in any, or a material, reduction in government revenue in the following year? Tax increases and lower revenues are plentiful. The opposite, I’m not so sure. Its a question, not an assertion. But I don’t think you’ll find it.
The child tax credit is, if I remember correctly, the biggest tax savings for my family besides the standard deductible (itemization doesn’t work for us and we don’t own property or have a mortgage). At lower income levels this would be a huge boost for family’s refund checks each year.
I’m not sure about the predictions for cutting child poverty given how the tax system works.
Sure. From the Tax Foundation. The Reagan tax cuts on the personal income tax rate were phased in. Revenues dropped sharply from 1982 to 1983 (the second phase of the cuts).
The deficit ballooned as a consequence of the drop in revenues coupled with expanding spending (mostly defense).
Hmm. If you increase income for the bottom 20 percent you might get more economic growth. Small businesses like auto repair, hair salons, craft industries … or more spending on plastics from China, like Apple.
I’m in line for advocating cuts for corporations, as you and Drew have taught me. Bring the money home, to the US. Then we’ll see what we can do.