I'm asking for someone to provide actual data and make sure we are all using the same words.
Are gross Federal revenues up, down, or neutral before, and after, the tax cut went into effect?
Is there a huge difference between the results for income tax revenues (individual and corporate) and other kinds of revenues?
Can we properly untangle the cause-and-effect? For example, if the income tax revenues were down, but payroll tax revenues overcame the difference to yield a net revenue growth, can we be sure the tax cuts didn't positively impact payroll tax revenues? In other words, is it all that cut and dried?
I've been poking around here which seems to indicate an overall revenue growth.
Ok, I checked, and yes, you are a complete dingleberry. The February revenues reflect quarterly corporate tax payments due off of Q4 2017 under the OLD tax code, before the cuts went into effect.
This year’s revenues are in the toilet. And no, the “payroll tax” does not offset it. That just reflects additional Social Security payments due in the future.
My point was that we should NOT be scoring tax rate cuts based on their revenue neutrality, or conversely, on their debt neutrality.
We should instead be scoring tax cuts on what I call “government burden neutrality”. This is because it is the level of government spending that burdens the private economy, regardless of whether that spending is financed by taxation or by borrowing.
As long as spending remains the same, tax hikes and tax cuts merely shift the burden from a tax burden to a debt burden - the burden remains unchanged.
I still advocate tax cuts though if that is the will of the people, because that is an honest measure of what the people are willing to spend on government. The deficit spending is the amount being spent AGAINST the will of the people.
I like the idea of keeping the two straight - it exposes the government as the theives they are. Maybe with that awareness there is a slight chance of reigning in the government. If we raise taxes to cover it, then there is zero chance of a cut in spending.
To me it’s like a teenage kid asking for an increase in his allowance, and when the parents say no, the kid says “OK then I’ll run up debt on credit cards and maybe later you’ll have to bail me out of debt”. This is when the parents should say “No, if you exceed your allowance and run up debt, you’re kicked out of the house”. If they are weak, and agree to increasing the allowance because they fear the teenager will run up debt, they are like the “fiscal conservatives” who will raise taxes to avoid debt. It’s a capitulation.