06-08-2017, 01:46 AM
Let's understand something.
Tax cuts are never revenue neutral. They usually do better than what is predicted, but I'm not going to debate if revenue neutral is the right measure.
The truth is outcomes [policy] is not stable. If you take a place like KS with above average employment, then it stands to reason that "trickle down" has limited (if not negative) value. Reagonomics worked because taxes and regulation were suffocating. I don't think that was the case with KS, so this policy was chasing very limited upside.
Taxes DO, trickle down. But, again, that's shouldn't be the decider. Nor should the arbitrary concept of "revenue neutral" be the decider.
In truth, federal and most states are "close" to optimal tax policy....things need to get pretty out-of-whack for there to be upside in a significant change. And that wasn't KS. Simply put, KS tried to ease when they should have been taking at a peak. You ease near the trough, and take near the peak...assuming revenue neutral is a goal (which I feel, itself, is fundamentally flawed).
I tend toward GDP growth....but that might be flawed in an era of [global] wealth gap expansion. Although that is another thread, traditional fiscal policy is definitely under pressure.
Tax cuts are never revenue neutral. They usually do better than what is predicted, but I'm not going to debate if revenue neutral is the right measure.
The truth is outcomes [policy] is not stable. If you take a place like KS with above average employment, then it stands to reason that "trickle down" has limited (if not negative) value. Reagonomics worked because taxes and regulation were suffocating. I don't think that was the case with KS, so this policy was chasing very limited upside.
Taxes DO, trickle down. But, again, that's shouldn't be the decider. Nor should the arbitrary concept of "revenue neutral" be the decider.
In truth, federal and most states are "close" to optimal tax policy....things need to get pretty out-of-whack for there to be upside in a significant change. And that wasn't KS. Simply put, KS tried to ease when they should have been taking at a peak. You ease near the trough, and take near the peak...assuming revenue neutral is a goal (which I feel, itself, is fundamentally flawed).
I tend toward GDP growth....but that might be flawed in an era of [global] wealth gap expansion. Although that is another thread, traditional fiscal policy is definitely under pressure.
--------------------------------------------------------
