Firstly you are probably aware that the heritage foundation is a anti-tax lobby group and
Roger Helmer is a Politicans with a seat in the European parlament. You didn't choose to quote economists but choose biased sources that don't researched economics with academic standards.
First the important thing when you discuss basic economic things like how taxes effect the economy that no rational case that doesn't include a lot of math can be a reasonable argument that explains that a theory works.
I think your links come basically down to the supply side economics argument:
"Higher revenues for lower tax rates. But this elegant economic theory actually works."
Specifically the claim is that the revenues would be higher or the same than they would be if the tax rates wouldn't have lowered.
It's the you can have the cake and eat it too argument.
The majority of academic economists considers supply side economics a fringe theory, that isn't true.
McCain sticks to supply-side economics despite evidence it doesn't work - International Herald Tribune is an article about McCain relationship with the concept.
Quote:
|
"What really happens is that the economy grows more vigorously when you lower tax rates," said Kevin Hassett, an adviser to the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain, and the director of economic policy studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. "It is beyond the reach of economic science to explain precisely why that happens, but it does."
|
I already talked to you about Keven Hassett in another thread but that basically the problem with the supply-side argument. It's suggests that scientific economics just doesn't work.
And that the main problem in this election. We have a party that runs a course that's
beyond the reach of science and decides based on belief.