Carnes: Tax Cuts and Jobs Act means no chicken, but a little coffee in every pot (column)
“Congrats to President Trump and Congress for the Tax Cut and Jobs Act.”
That makes you happy, eh?
Do you like Starbucks?
“What? Sure, I suppose. I grab a cup o’ Joe a few times each week. What does that have to do with anything?”
According to Trump, the average family would save enough to have an extra venti mocha latte at Starbucks every three or four days, and that’s about it. Although it might depend upon which location you prefer, as you could get a few more ventis at the location in Edwards as opposed to the one in Beaver Creek.
“But that’s not for everyone.”
You mean Beaver Creek or the tax cut savings?
Agreed, but as for the tax cut, that statement applies to more than half of all American taxpayers, and of course that piddly amount goes away after a few years and most will end up paying an even higher percentage of their income to the government.
“So, let me guess, you’re against the tax cuts.”
Au contraire, mon ami, on a personal level, I’m all for ’em, especially for the next few years.
People like me are receiving a substantial tax cut, I’d be foolish to be against it, but I admit that is a very selfish approach.
“What do you mean? And what kind of person are you?”
That’s irrelevant, sorry I brought it up. Listen, I assume you’re a big fan of the “Keynesian/Supply Side” economic model.
Okay, that tells me what I need to know. There is no such thing as the “Keynesian/Supply-Side” economic model. Any model based on British economist John Maynard Keynes is demand-based, meaning public consumption spurs growth, not tax cuts.
“Wasn’t that the guy who wrote the ‘Star-Spangled Banner.’”
No, that was Francis Scott Key. Three words, yes, but please, try to keep up.
“Well, you’re just setting me up to look stupid.”
Nope, just making a point, and besides, you don’t need my help.
Reagan was the first to cut taxes based on the supply-side Laffer Curve back in the ’80s.
“The Laugher Curve? Was that some sort of joke?”
Depends upon who you ask, but the result was a doubling of our national debt. Most economists will argue over the success or failure of “Supply-Side” until they’re in the grave, but the bottom line has always been an increase in the national debt, and with this latest tax cut they’re not even trying to hide the fact.
Whether you or I personally benefit or not is completely irrelevant to the fact that our children will be forced to pay for it in the future, and that is the fundamental reason so many are against these cuts. Bottom line is government spending is a much larger problem than tax rates, and until we have spending under control, not much will change in terms of national debt.
“You think you’re so smart, what makes you any different from all the other armchair economists dispensing financial wisdom?”
Absolutely nothing, I just wanted to point out the fallacy of the “tinkle down theory.”
“Don’t you mean trickle?”
Richard Carnes, of Edwards, writes weekly. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.