Quote: OK, then lets define works as: noticeably improves economic conditions. Every time taxes are cut to improve economic conditions, economic conditions are improved.
I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. In fact I would wholly disagree with it. At least, from the definition of a "tax-cut" these days, which is more of an enlarged rebate than a true tax cut. It often takes multiple cuts to get the desired affect, and it's virtually impossible to connect the cause with the effect.
The huge tax cuts under Kennedy, Johnson, and Ford had absolutely no measurable economic impact. In fact, the problems that arose with the poor fiscal policy were considered substantially more harmful than any benefit that could have potentially arose from the tax cut.
Fact of the matter is, taxes are generally cut when the economy has faltered considerably. And, considering the cyclical nature of the economy, it's virtually impossible to determine if the tax cuts are indeed the cause of the increase in economic conditions. It's just as, perhaps even more, likely that the business cycle would have gone up no matter what was done. The fact that it often takes multiple cuts to have any effect whatsoever is further evidence of this. We're pretty much just along for the ride.
That logic that tax cuts cause economic rebounds is about as sound as "Clinton was responsible for the Tech Boom".
I'm not trying to justify high tax rates or anything. As a libertarian (at least from the tax policy perspective) I would rather most didn't exist. I just have a severe dislike for these Keynesian tax cuts that are used more to placate constituents than actually effect the economy. If you want to really cut taxes, practice supply-side tax cuts, not Keynesian.
