What you're saying is that everyone is supposed to accept high taxes, and that any reduction has to be justified to the satisfaction of the tax advocate. I prefer the idea that any taxes at all have to be justified before I'm willing to vote for them. Let's decide who has the burden of proof.
| Who has to explain the need for taxes? | Taxpayer | Tax spender |
| expat_panama | x | |
| Remember | x |
So far it's a tie. Anyone else care to vote?
This seems to be a common argument. Over the past decade, I've averaged an annual return of about 10% on my investments. Would I rather have the government take my money, that I can earn 10% on, to feed an insatiable beast or; would I rather they borrow money at 4% to meet their needs? Does anyone really doubt the answer to this?
I don't know that tax cuts can ever starve the beast enough to pay for themselves. However, the benefits of allowing American's to keep more of their money are self evident in the rapidly increasing household net worth numbers.
Here's an interesting (but older) article from Heritage that talks more about tax cuts and their many benefits. You might find chart 6, 7 and 9 interesting. I wonder if the tax cuts of the 80's would have paid for themselves if congress could have controlled their spending.