> I can re-define economic growth to mean the size of my checking account. Income inequality has its own definition. You re-defining it to mean something its not doesn't mean much.

You do realize you’re stating exactly what I did in slightly different wording? Specifically that the only manner in which lowering taxes is proven as a cause of economic growth is when economic growth is defined as growing individual bank accounts of an increasingly smaller proportion of the population?

> Its not a trope. Your personal ideology might or might not allow you to recognize this. I would recommend keeping an open mind.

It most certainly is a trope. It is a motif, a recurrent theme used by many who criticize government spending. What exactly do you think a trope is? Suggesting one keep an open mind has nothing at all todo with recognizing a discursive trope.

> Once you create the means for someone to obtain wealth, you cannot fault the individual for maximizing their gains under a capitalist system.

Nothing in my comment faults individuals for maximizing their potential gains under a capitalist system. In fact, i don’t fault individuals because, under a capitalist system, one is required to operate in that way or starve to death. Recognizing and calling this out is not the same thing as blaming people for doing it.

> Look, if you don't believe that the government does a very poor job of allocating resources, then our disconnect is large enough that realistically no consensus can be reached.

You are rejecting the possibility of understanding and/or consensus based on your own ideological tenet, not any sort of evidence or discussion of facts. For you, “that the government does a very poor job of allocating resources” is an axiom, a political/ideological article of faith. This is in no way proven, yet you’re establishing an impasse by refusing to engage with the possibility that could be false.

> The motivations of the people lobbying for their piece of the government pie only exist in a context where (1) people are greedy and (2) the government has tons of money to spend. We can't do anything about #1, but maybe something about #2.

You do realize the people—who are allegedly not to be faulted for being “greedy” as a foundational concept of living in a capitalist system—are submitting bids/invoices for their piece of the pie voluntarily, right? If you do, on what sensible grounds can you criticize the government for paying up? The government is obeying the rules of this capitalist system. Even if it always was required to choose the cheapest bid, one could still allege that is waste. At which point, your ideology is blaming the government for “wasting” resources when there are no other options, and—with no evidence provided—concludes the answer is to starve the government of resources to use for the public good. You appear to believe you can eliminate waste not by targeting where the waste is procured (and where the rates are set) but by targeting who pays for it. That’s some pretty interesting mental gymnastics there.

> Nothing of the sort has been conclusively demonstrated, primarily because macro economics deals with aggregate human behavior - and humans are not automations. To every example of a low-tax low-growth economy is a counter example of high-tax still low-growth economy.

Yes, it most certainly has. Here’s 65 years of data to get you started: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/tax-cut...

A sibling commenter has provided other links in their posts.

Is there proof that raising taxes causes economic growth? No. That claim is not made. Is there proof that cutting taxes harms economic growth? No. What is shown is that cutting taxes does not spur economic growth, as those who advocate for that idea claim.

Where are the examples and serious data that show cutting taxes and starving the government of resources leads to high economic growth? You’re claiming it’s out there, so where is it? Where’s the low-tax, high-growth country? How long does that last? How much demonstrable growth is triggered as a result of each cut in taxes? How much of that growth is actually a product of the lower taxes?