\nThe following is according to my understanding.<\/p>\n
\nI mention back in my post from Dec. 6, 2023,<\/a> about supply-side economics. Essentially, the idea is that any money business can invest will grow the tax base and therefore increase government revenue by even more than if the government kept said money. It’s an argument for cutting taxes.<\/p>\n \nNowadays, a related idea is circulating: the idea of a tax cut even when a government is running a deficit. Can such an idea work?<\/p>\n \nFrom a simplistic point of view, the philosophy of supply-side economics suggests that it can. Yet, perhaps there are a couple of less philosophical ways people look at the situation.<\/p>\n \nOne point of view is that the government generally pays itself first, so taxes are best reduced.<\/p>\n \nAnother idea is that government spending needs to be controlled, no matter what it’s for. Remitting less money to the government will logically reduce its spending somewhat, even if it runs deficits. (Supply siders might not subscribe to this one.)<\/p>\n \nSource:<\/p>\n fraserinstitute.org<\/a><\/p>\nJack of Oracle Tutoring by Jack and Diane,<\/a> Campbell River, BC.\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Self-tutoring about political ideology vs gritty economics: the tutor mentions a long-enduring conflict. The following is according to my understanding. I mention back in my post from Dec. 6, 2023, about supply-side economics. Essentially, the idea is that any money …<\/p>\n