>>17951907
>>17951979
>>17952001
The results are more damning once you realize that short boost is useless and boosts inequality.

>https://academic.oup.com/ser/article/20/2/539/6500315#365254752
>"The upper panel shows that major tax cuts lead to a significant increase in inequality and that this effect becomes stronger with time. Three years after the major tax cut, the top 1% income share increases by 0.6 percentage points. Over 5 years, the top 1% share of pre-tax national income increases by more than 0.7 percentage points."
>"Thus, we find no evidence that countries that cut taxes for the rich experience a stronger (or weaker) growth in inequality prior to tax reforms. In other words, the findings show strong support for the parallel trends assumption that underlies the difference-in-differences estimator."
>"The results suggest that tax reforms do not lead to higher economic growth. The effect size of major tax cuts for the rich on real GDP per capita is close to zero and statistically insignificant."
>"Finally, we look at the effect of major tax cuts for the rich on unemployment. The lower panel of Figure 3 [picrel] shows the results. In general, we see more fluctuation in the estimates. In the years immediately following the tax reform, the point estimates are negative. In the medium term, the estimates return to close to zero. However, none of these estimates are statistically significant at any conventional level."

>https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/107919/1/Hope_economic_consequences_of_major_tax_cuts_published.pdf
>"We find that major tax cuts for the rich push up income inequality, as measured by the top
1% share of pre-tax national income. The effect holds in both the short and medium term."
>"Turning our attention to economic performance, we find no significant effects of major tax cuts for the rich. More
specifically, the trajectories of real GDP per capita and the unemployment rate are unaffected by significant reductions in taxes on the rich."