In short, tax cuts without govt spending cuts simply imply that a different form of handbrake is to be applied.

“ The problem is not with the government, which does not cut costs, and not with the finance minister, who does not raise taxes. The problem is in New Zealand society with a deep sense of entitlement to public money.

~ PJ O'Rourke, from "Parliament of Whores ," translation from America

The leader of the opposition needs what everyone is talking about, especially what everyone needs to be told.

But talk of tax cuts will lead. it will immediately grab everyone’s attention, for or against.

When a politician talks about tax cuts, my first thought is, “how much?”. then "what restrictions promise?"

He promises that all political hopes everywhere will “take over” the waste to fund their promises. And Mr. Luxon (everyone is running for mayor ) is no different. And, as Eric Crampton notes , "there are still predictions that there is a gap in the gap." And we should expect greater health care costs over the next decade. »

Why is this important? Without a corresponding cost reduction the hand of the government is still in your pocket. Any promised tax deduction is just irresponsible fraud.

Governments that you see have only three ways to spend money: taxes, loans or printing. The higher the cost, the greater one or more of these three barriers to successful capital accumulation. The more governments spend, the less private investment there can be.

Thus, under this rule, it should be clear that tax cuts are in themselves an indirect means of stimulating growth, potentially more destructive than real cost reductions without a developer.

In short, tax cuts are another handbrake without cutting government spending.

And the brake on this is a state debt. This, of course, makes tax cuts even more profitable.

Copyright for PC.BlogSpot.Com content © Reprints are allowed with reference և.