Wrong. If the government gives $100 billion in tax cuts to people whose cost of capital is 8% and the government borrows at 4%, that's a tax cut of $4 billion a year. Not even counting the added growth due to the incentive of keeping more of your own money.
The only way taxes to cut taxes is to cut government costs [can you say veto].
Cutting spending would be an added bonus of course.
Wrong. If the government gives $100 billion in tax cuts to people whose cost of capital is 8% and the government borrows at 4%, that's a tax cut of $4 billion a year. Not even counting the added growth due to the incentive of keeping more of your own money.
That $100 billion tax cut will not help the future taxpayers who will have to service the extra debt unless those who receive the tax cut use it to pay down their mortgages or otherwise lessen their debt and leave all of the savings to the next generation. What happens if they just increase their consumption and spend it? The one way to guarantee that that doesn't happen would be to require all taxpayers to repay the tax cut, plus the 4% that it's costing the government to carry the debt, when they retire. Then they can pocket the $4 billion savings that you mention and leave the next generation with no greater burden. Do you favor that?
Even if those who receive the tax cuts DO leave all of that savings to the next generation, the burden will not be evenly distributed. Person A may receive a portion of the savings in inheritance and Person B may receive nothing. However, both will have to pay the higher taxes to service the additional debt. Hence, unless the U.S. becomes one big hippie commune, the benefits and burdens will not be divided evenly, even if the current generation does pass the savings on.