I disagree that this tax cut is "bad for the deficit." The CBO will probably score this statically and portray it as a reduction in revenue, but the truth is that tax cuts increase revenue due to increased economic activity. Tax revenues under Reagan increased from $517B in 1980 to $909B in 1988 with two huge tax cuts. The reason the deficit also increased was due to increased spending, not decreased revenue.
https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762
Can we please stop with the continued Laffer curve argument? For one thing, Laffer's hypothesis establishes no baseline for where revenue would begin to decrease from a tax cut. For such low individual tax rates, especially on solely income, it makes no sense to argue that these cuts will increase revenue.
Furthermore, showing an increase in tax revenue over an eight year period is highly irresponsible and does not account for more factors. Taking a look at this sole data point is the equivalent of looking at the Venezuelan GDP in current, not chained, dollars.
Even though revenue increased over those eight years, it's likely revenue would have been higher if the original tax code had been kept. In addition, President Reagan also enacted several tax increases over the course of his Presidency that probably raised revenue, too. This also ignores the economic and population growth over the course of eight years, a relatively long span of time in economics.
This is a very facile argument and I'd like to add, Laffer's curve has little application outside of heavy taxation or nations that have large underground markets. It simply makes no economic logic to argue that the United States, a country with one of the lowest tax burdens in the OECD, stands to gain revenue from this proposal.
