thill@ssc-bee.UUCP (Tom Hill) (11/06/85)
> In all the replies to my article on the decline of the > savings rate to its lowest level in this century I > have noticed that nobody wishes to defend this aspect > of supply-side economics. T.C. Wheeler simply denies > that supply-side economics has anything to do with > increasing savings and investment- merely showing that > he has no notion of the "theory" behind supply-side > economics. (that less taxes for the wealthy would mean > more savings, which would lead to more investment, and > consequently improved production which would ultimately > miraculously lead to actually increased government revenues > so that the tax cuts would pay for themselves) Well Tim, the tax revenues have gone up since the tax breaks and that I believe was the thrust behind the bill. Less taxes for the wealthy means more investment and guess what? that is exactly what we have seen. Stop running off at the mouth simply because you can't stand T.C. > This same ignorance is shown by another poster who says > that it doesn't matter what people spend their money on, > since it is better to leave this choice to them than the > government. Whether this happens to be true or not doesn't > matter to *my point* which is that according to *supply-side > theory* less taxes would indeed lead to increased savings. Wrong. See above. > So far after 4 years this has not proved to be true. > Needless to say other supply-side premises, such as the > fantastic premise that tax cuts would pay for themselves > have proved to be so fantastically off the mark that Wrong again. > they are not even mentioned in the wake of the largest deficits > in our country's history. While our government is in debt Ah, now we finally get to Tim's point. The deficit. Obviously the deficit is bigger now than ever before, but why? It is too simple to say that it is just because of the military budget. The Republicans and conservative Democrats finally had the power to spend the money needed for the Military but didn't have the power (or the guts) to reduce other spending. Your argument is simply too simplistic. > > [more stuff of little or no value] > > > . > . > . > > > tim sevener whuxn!orb Niether of the parties is doing their job. Across the board cuts are needed and with the wimps we have now nothing is ever going to change. When are they going to pass the line-item veto? I can think of now effective argument against it. Smile, Tom Hill (my remarks are all mine, as always)