Elementary school economics, maybe. Government is inherently inefficient. Taking more money out of the economy takes money - people have to spend time taking the money, people have to spend time accounting for it, people have to spend time finding and punishing those who don't pay the extra money. Returning the money to the economy takes money - people have to spend time deciding who is eligible for the money, people have to spend time applying for the money, people have to spend time making sure that those people are telling the truth about their qualifications, and then people have to spend time taxing the money again. And all of these people need supervisors, who in turn need supervisors, and so forth. None of this time produces any wealth - no goods, no services, no intellectual property. It's simply overhead in moving money around.
Meanwhile the people from whom the money was taken have less money to purchase or invest, and the overhead means that the net effect is always negative; you simply can't give out more money than you take. Taxes always produce a net negative effect on the economy, it's simply inevitable. The only acceptable reason for taxes is to do things that people cannot easily do without government. It would be considerably cheaper for individuals to band together to build an interstate highway system or an army for defense, but it's not practical; therefore we create governments.
Thinking the government can remove money from the economy, hand it back out, and therefore stimulate the economy in any lasting fashion is the very essence of bat shit crazy.
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread
Facebook
Twitter