You don’t. The idea is that the money the rich get will be invested in industry and jobs will ensue. The fact that 10 trillion is sitting in banks, not the market, not tbills, not financial instruments the bankers are peddling ,but sitting in banks is proof. Investment houses are trying to woo them to invest with them and the wealthy are resisting. Do you really not understand that? No it is not in mattresses. You can retire that any time.
How so?
At the very least, they hire government workers who now have money to invest.
The government then has programs which cost money. Medicare buys medical equipment and pays medical employees. etc
The military could buy $10k worth of guns, or some dude in the desert could buy the same guns.
What is different about the government receiving $10k and spending it, vs the guy they took it from? What is the deadweight?
You would wonder why they’re not investing. After all, income taxes and capital gains taxes are far lower than previous decades when investment was much higher than it has been this century. This accretion of capital by businesses is something that’s been building up for three decades now, since right around the time when supply side economics people told us that slashing income/capital gains taxes would unleash a wave of investment that would produce increased economic growth. But that manifestly hasn’t happened. Businesses are just sitting on huge piles of cash. It’s almost like they can’t see these huge investment opportunities that have been afforded them by the supply siders. Maybe it’s because of the huge redistribution of wealth that’s happened over the last 30 years that’s left American businesses’ customers heavily in debt with flat income growth and less and less money to spend over the years. Maybe there’ll have to be a re-redistribution of wealth to get the economy moving again, a more equitable division of the spoils.
I was just thinking and realized that IF the OP’s proposition were true, then taxation would have to cause the economic activity it taxes before it taxed it, and that it could generate infinite revenue. The reason is simple: if all possible decreases in tax level (i.e., tax cuts decreased revenue), then only increased taxation could ever increase revenue. But, as taxation approached 100%, tax decreases would still produce less revenue under the OP’s resolution! In fact, this logic would therefore hold true no matter how far the tax rates were increased. Therefore, we could secure effectively infinite government revenue just by cranking the tax rates arbitrarily high.
Alternatively, of course, it could be that revenues are always 0, in which case th resolution could be correct without violating any principles. But in that case no taxation could exist in practice and probably no economic activity to tax, either.
Since this is clearly impossible (with our limited, mortal understanding of things like “limits”), we can probably safely say this ain’t gonna work. Sure, sure, all you people came up with your practica; objecitons. But it’s nice to be sure that this is utterly impossible in any possible universe we can comprehend. 
In this article, the writer points out that according to the Washington Post , companies are sitting on 1.8 trillion dollars and have not added workers. They see a weaker consumer demand . Yet employees are afraid of losing their jobs or have already lost them. So weaker demand is a logical defense against a shaky future.
Corporations have managed to get by with less workers doing more and are reluctant to add to the work force. If they do add , it is offshore workers. So we are stuck.
The lesson is simple. Cutting corporate taxes will not help employment. They are sitting on lots of money. Profits have soared. Top salaries and bonuses have soared. The concentration of wealth in the top has accelerated. The result. Less American jobs.
Cutting taxes for corporations has not resulted in employment. It is another idea that should be shitcanned.
Henry Ford added workers and raised salaries so the common man could buy his autos. He knew a strong demand was a key to increasing sales and profits. He knew that was how you grow. Strangling workers will not increase American demand. Many corporations do not care. They think demand in China, India and other new markets will provide demand and make them more money. Their strategy is to starve America .They don’t need us anymore. We love our corporations not to have any consciences or care about public welfare. They are damaging the American economy and dragging the American worker down. The last thing these Un-American Corporations need to do is escape paying taxes.
That depends on the goal in mind. To the likes of Grover Norquist, the point of “starving the beast” is not to raise tax revenue, nor even to raise the GDP, but simply to starve the beast, as an end-in-itself. And I’ve actually heard GOP senators say things like, “I wouldn’t want the level of government we’re getting now even if it were free.”
Corporations are managing to get by with less workers doing less. This gives the lie to the bs claims of the right and their think tanks about lack of new hiiring being caused by uncertainty over some new taxes or regulations the Kenyan may bring in in a couple of years. If there was an actual increasing demand for business and services, corporations terrified of the Kenyan’s socialist policies would be increasing the number of hours of their existing workers instead of taking on new staff, but what are they doing, even after laying off millions? Cutting the hours of the people who still have a job.
Which is the only thing that makes sense. Because if tax cuts really did result in more tax revenue than before, you could expand government services as much as you wanted, and magically pay for them by cutting taxes even more.
I didn’t say the entire thing was deadweight or even that the deadweight was unnecessary. Lets start with a farmer that produces arugula for local consumption. He earns $100 and gets taxed $35. If the tax rate was 0%, the farmer might produce $120 worth of Arugula by farming more efficiently, planting his crops at more optimal distances (all with more effort being expended). BUT WAIT, I said expenditure, not taxes, I guess you’ll have to fogive me if I conflate the two. I don’t think we are going to default on our debt so to me, spending=taxes.
I guess I could also say that every bullet fired in Iraq is not doing a lot for our economy.
But starving the beast has not successfully shrunk the size of government in 30 years of trying (with Republican Presidents for 22 of those years). The only way to cut spending is to man up and cut spending.
Bush lied about all that stuff to get into office. He of course did what republicans do, he spent like crazy and greatly increased the debt. Talking about fiscal sanity is not the same thing as doing it.
But the neo republican philosophy has been laid out . They want to destroy any programs that help the disadvantaged ,poor and old. They are an elitist group, that believes the US should be governed by a few chosen powerful,extremely wealthy people.
Cutting taxes over and over is not logical until you see it as a step toward their ultimate goal. They said since Reagan that deficits don’t matter. Then they acted as if it were true. They want to remove political power from the unwashed masses. They caused the deficits to make it politically palatable to destroy any programs that don’t help the upper class. The push to kill estate taxes is another pet project. Wars are another. They send the poor to fight while certain specific corporations like Haliburton, and Blackwater get stronger and richer. The money/power is being concentrated in a few chosen people and companies. They don’t care whatsoever about tea baggers. They will use them to vote for the repubs and they will give them nothing. They will encourage the gun nuts to vote for them too by pretending they care about the second amendment. They will deliver nothing. They said they would starve the beast, which is the government and the poor. Then they did. What a surprise. The Democrats shrink the deficits. The repubs grow them. That is easy to see.