So we're still testing out if tax cuts can increase consumer spending and grow the economy, then?
In the past the government would choose a competent industrialist to lead the construction such as Kaiser to build the Hoover Dam. Imagine the impossibility of appointing a billionaire industrialist to build CA high-speed rail in this age.
Cutting taxes and spending (ie austerity) has a more mixed track record of getting out of economic recessions, in my view.
Look at: the Internet, pharmaceuticals, automobile industry, energy industry, manufacturing
All downstream of massive government spending funded by taxes.
france for example has high taxes compared to USA. is it growing more or less than USA?
No one claimed this, and so no one will respond directly to your “rebuttal.”
The US has significantly higher taxes than Vanuatu, and higher growth.
A traditional economist might define it as "the velocity of money". In a "hot" economy there's a lot of (domestic) spending (and hence selling) going on.
But this definition says nothing about the lot of the average, or below average, individual. If a trillion $ moves from individuals to govt as tax, and the govt spends that tax, then by this definition this is a good economy.
Conversely if you use the word "economy" as a place holder for personal success / improvement, being able to buy a house, afford medical care, buy groceries, eat out, have a solid job with a decent wage, well, high taxes probably aren't great.
If taxes are high, then how the govt chooses to spend the money starts to matter. If it is pumped into domestic production (aka salaries) that can be good. If that production has meaningful long term benefits (like infrastructure) so much the better. Useless spending (like on border walls, ballrooms or silly boats) can have short term gains, but dissolve in the longer term.