[Alberta's Child]

By lowering marginal tax rates we have encouraged economic vigor and put more money in the government's hands. This we call Supply-Side Economics.

The author has no idea what he's talking about. Reductions in marginal tax rates and putting more money in the government's hands are not the defining characteristics of supply-side economics.

[loveliberty2]

As I understand the essay, and with all respect to you, the writer did not, in fact, limit his sentence, "This we call Supply-Side Economics" to the single preceding sentence you have quoted in your response, but to the interpretation and facts related throughout his entire piece. In that sense, his claim makes sense.

An article in The Library of Economics and Liberty by Dr. James D. Gwartney located here provides both theoretical and historically factual information on this topic, and would be good reading for young people who hear the term being thrown about today and need some understanding, as well as historical perspective and fact.

[WOSG]

"By lowering marginal tax rates we have encouraged economic vigor and put more money in the government's hands. This we call Supply-Side Economics."

"The author has no idea what he's talking about. Reductions in marginal tax rates and putting more money in the government's hands are not the defining characteristics of supply-side economics."

ACtually he is quite correct. Supply-side economics re-introduced the concept of dynamic incentives wrt taxes in the economy, which included the Laffer curve notion that lower tax rates could produce higher tax revenues.
Further, that lower taxes increases growth rates which increase revenues.

This is the standard stuff from the supply-side classic 'The Way the World Works' and "Wealth and Poverty'.

[doctor noe]

Perhaps you're correct, though the Laffer Curve clearly and accurately demonstrates the relationship between tax rates and revenue. The only unknown is the "optimal" marginal rate. It's like the chicken and the egg argument. There is no way to prove or define an "optimal" rate. Unfortunately, the only way for a supply-sider to "prove" that lower rates generate higher revenues is to argue against tax-cutting opponents who claim that lower rates will generate lower revenues. Example: Robert Rubin, in 1997, argued that the '97 capgains cut would generate less revenue. Just the opposite occurred. A supply-sider may not necessarily want the government to have more revenue, but that is always the end result when marginal rates are cut.