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.
I agree with you 100%. The way to keep expenses within revenues is to cut expenses, not raise revenues.
I also agree that taxes should be used to generate revenue - ONLY. Not to encourage certain behaviors.