Can Anyone Find an Economist Who Thinks Trump's Tax Cuts Will Pay for Themselves?

Republicans have long preached the gospel of supply side economics, the theory that says cutting taxes and stripping away costly, safety-oriented regulations leads to higher tax revenue from increased economic activity, which leads to more goods and services, greater competition and lower consumer prices.


In other words, let the wealthy and the private sector keep more of the revenue they generate and they will magnanimously pull people out of poverty by reinvesting money that would have gone to pay for schools and fire fighters into more business activity.

Critics argue that tax cuts don’t automatically lead to job creation or increased productivity as the rich and the corporations don’t always reinvest profit to grow their businesses. A wealthy business owner might instead of reinvesting to hire more employees buy a second home in Boca Raton, Florida, and dump more money into his IRA. A corporation might use the money it saves in deregulation to shut a factory down in the U.S. and open one in Honduras.

Whatever the case may be, one thing economists seem to be saying about President Donald Trump’s aggressive tax cutting and spending plans is that it will most likely increased the national debt.  Among other things, Trump is proposing slashing the business tax form 35 percent to 15 percent.

In the latest warning about just how unlikely Trump’s proposals will pay for themselves with increased growth has come from a set of regular and widely read surveys by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business. In its most recent poll published last week, 35 out of 37 economists disagreed with the following statement:  The tax reform plan proposed by President Trump this week would likely pay for itself through higher economic growth. Most of the 35 experts who disagreed with the statement said the “strongly disagreed.”

On Monday, the two economists who had originally “agreed” with the statement backed away from their initial responses, claiming they misunderstood the statement.

“I screwed up on that one,” one of those economists, Kenneth Judd from the conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford University, when asked about his response by the Washington Post’s Max Ehrenfreund. “I meant to say that this is a horrible idea, a bad idea — no chance in hell.” Judd is affiliated with the conservative Hoover Institution.

Bengt Holmström of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the other economist, confirmed to the Post that he too had misread the question.

Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin told a group of investors at a conference in Beverly Hills last week that the government’s loss of revenue from Trump administration’s tax cuts would  be recovered through economic growth and the elimination of tax breaks and loopholes.

#story_page_post_article

Understand the importance of honest news ?

So do we.

The past year has been the most arduous of our lives. The Covid-19 pandemic continues to be catastrophic not only to our health - mental and physical - but also to the stability of millions of people. For all of us independent news organizations, it’s no exception.

We’ve covered everything thrown at us this past year and will continue to do so with your support. We’ve always understood the importance of calling out corruption, regardless of political affiliation.

We need your support in this difficult time. Every reader contribution, no matter the amount, makes a difference in allowing our newsroom to bring you the stories that matter, at a time when being informed is more important than ever. Invest with us.

Make a one-time contribution to Alternet All Access, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you.

Click to donate by check.

DonateDonate by credit card
Donate by Paypal
{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}