The tax cuts tend to be accompanied by the austerity - the cuts to spending on welfare etc that you didn’t mention at all, but which reduce growth because the folks at the poorer end of the income distribution don’t have any income to spend. Tax cuts don’t stimulate growth because they tend to disproportionately benefit wealthier folks who tend to save the extra cash than splurge it. It just takes money out of the real economy and gets turned into rental properties which takes even more money out of the real economy. If you increase benefits, you get an immediate increase in consumer activity and services because the hordes of ordinarily-incomed folks have plenty of things they need and want to spend on and couldn’t. Not to mention the hardship that comes from severe lack of cash.
Small government isn’t good in itself for any particular reason other than further wealth hoarding by the already comfortably off. This article is a fairly unmitigated argument in favour of small government and it takes no account whatsoever, and neither have you, of the ills visited upon ordinary folks by austerity. It’s not a balanced argument, and making out that it’s in the slightest bit centrist is “alternative facts”.
Also, the UK is not in the slightest danger of the pendulum swinging too far the other way.
What tax cuts? The only reference the article makes to tax cuts is to a) criticise the sort of blanket Laffer curve-ism that the political right are guilty of, but b) note that, just as sometimes Laffer curve-ism can be correct, so sometimes the belief that government spending pays for itself can be correct. The article doesn’t at any point advocate tax cuts.
I think you made an (I think incorrect) assumption about the author’s intent when you read the article and so are imposing a bunch of assumptions on to it that don’t reflect the actual words that are written.
The authors intent was clearly and obviously to dissuade people from supporting government expenditure that has anything like an aim of improving the country. You’re trying to convince me that the author, (who labels Biden as anti capitalist and Sunak as anti London) isn’t attempting to convince governments to spend less. It isn’t working. “See how it never works! Laugh at the naivety of trying to make things better! Worry about the government spending your money! Worry about the debt you somehow personally participate in as a result of government spending!” The article is so wholeheartedly pro small government, anti big government and anti social intervention, it’s absurd of you to claim it’s not arguing for reduced government spending and reduced tax intake. It isn’t saying it explicitly very often, but the only point against tax cuts (and the one you keep bringing up) is that they might not be self funding. It’s not arguing that tax cuts always bring in more tax, no, but it is arguing for reducing taxation by spending less on “investment”.
You’re trying to convince me that there’s no wood by drawing my attention to several trees, and even some tufts of grass. You have missed the point of the article which is to reduce government spending, especially outside London. Cuts. Cuts hurt. They hurt the poorest most. You’ve never addressed that point and you’re misrepresenting the purpose and the message of the article.
The tax cuts tend to be accompanied by the austerity - the cuts to spending on welfare etc that you didn’t mention at all, but which reduce growth because the folks at the poorer end of the income distribution don’t have any income to spend. Tax cuts don’t stimulate growth because they tend to disproportionately benefit wealthier folks who tend to save the extra cash than splurge it. It just takes money out of the real economy and gets turned into rental properties which takes even more money out of the real economy. If you increase benefits, you get an immediate increase in consumer activity and services because the hordes of ordinarily-incomed folks have plenty of things they need and want to spend on and couldn’t. Not to mention the hardship that comes from severe lack of cash.
Small government isn’t good in itself for any particular reason other than further wealth hoarding by the already comfortably off. This article is a fairly unmitigated argument in favour of small government and it takes no account whatsoever, and neither have you, of the ills visited upon ordinary folks by austerity. It’s not a balanced argument, and making out that it’s in the slightest bit centrist is “alternative facts”.
Also, the UK is not in the slightest danger of the pendulum swinging too far the other way.
What tax cuts? The only reference the article makes to tax cuts is to a) criticise the sort of blanket Laffer curve-ism that the political right are guilty of, but b) note that, just as sometimes Laffer curve-ism can be correct, so sometimes the belief that government spending pays for itself can be correct. The article doesn’t at any point advocate tax cuts.
I think you made an (I think incorrect) assumption about the author’s intent when you read the article and so are imposing a bunch of assumptions on to it that don’t reflect the actual words that are written.
The authors intent was clearly and obviously to dissuade people from supporting government expenditure that has anything like an aim of improving the country. You’re trying to convince me that the author, (who labels Biden as anti capitalist and Sunak as anti London) isn’t attempting to convince governments to spend less. It isn’t working. “See how it never works! Laugh at the naivety of trying to make things better! Worry about the government spending your money! Worry about the debt you somehow personally participate in as a result of government spending!” The article is so wholeheartedly pro small government, anti big government and anti social intervention, it’s absurd of you to claim it’s not arguing for reduced government spending and reduced tax intake. It isn’t saying it explicitly very often, but the only point against tax cuts (and the one you keep bringing up) is that they might not be self funding. It’s not arguing that tax cuts always bring in more tax, no, but it is arguing for reducing taxation by spending less on “investment”.
You’re trying to convince me that there’s no wood by drawing my attention to several trees, and even some tufts of grass. You have missed the point of the article which is to reduce government spending, especially outside London. Cuts. Cuts hurt. They hurt the poorest most. You’ve never addressed that point and you’re misrepresenting the purpose and the message of the article.