Something to take into account, which most guestimates of tax reduction costs don’t do, because it’s very difficult to do, is that the overall economic system is highly reactive. Make a big change in one place, and everyone will react in ways that will make the numbers shift all over the place.
But there will also be a time-delay between the change, and the results. Lots of tricks have been played on Americans over the decades, by making changes, and then pointing to the IMMEDIATE results, as though they are characteristic of the change.
It’s a bit like, if you stop paying your energy bills today, you will seem to be that much richer, right away. But after a while, the energy suppliers will turn off your power, and then you will have to spend that “extra” money to cope with that reaction.
So-called Reaganomics, was based on the ASSUMPTION that lowering taxes on the richest people would nearly instantly result in them investing more, and growing the economy, thus more than offsetting the revenue losses to the government, as taxes on everyone else’s rising incomes, made up the difference. It was BS, and it didn’t happen, for the most part, because the economy was never that simple.
Also, there are more “costs” involved with making changes, than the cash itself.
It would probably behoove you to look up WHY each tax that was enacted, WAS enacted. Some taxes are arranged, because the people enacting them want revenues, and look for places where they think “extra money” wont be missed. But other taxes are there to try to influence the economy, either to discourage things, or encourage them.
But the INTENTIONS of the tax changes don’t always pan out (see the utter failure of Reaganomics, for example).
By the way, the reason I say that Reaganomics as advertised failed, is because in the event, Reagan’s government didn’t JUST lower taxes on the rich. They also spent government money like there was no tomorrow, and goosed the hell out of the private sector that way. So the economy DID go into positive territory, but it wasn’t because the tax cuts caused business investment. It was because the government joined the Customer Class big time, and drove business expansion the old fashioned way: by BUYING STUFF.