(08-10-2018, 05:53 AM)mikesez Wrote:

(08-09-2018, 10:50 PM)MalabarJag Wrote:
You need to compare what the April 2019 revenue would have been without the tax cuts to what is is with the tax cuts. The rate of inflation is just one modifier. How much tax would have been lost from corporations fleeing the US in 2018 had the corporate rate remained the same is another.

The tax cut was not passed to raise revenue, it was 1) to stop the bleeding of corporations from the US, (via the cut in the corporate rate), 2) a small stimulus (by reducing the top rate) and 3) to make the tax code fairer (by doubling the standard deduction and limiting the state and local tax deduction). #1 was the most important for the future of our country, and was the most significant change. If the net effect is to also raise revenue, then that's a bonus.

I'm sorry that's moving the goalposts.
the only thing that is as tenuous as predicting the future is trying to counter factually recreate a past but with alternate decisions. counterfactual analysis is great as a thought experiment between friends, but it doesn't give definitive answers.

Moving the goalposts implies a purely linear frame of reference.  We've been having a discussion about short term revenue projections.  That's interesting and important.  That's not the same as the question of long term stimulative affects or long term revenue projections but that doesn't make either of those two criteria any less important or desirable.

---