Jeb Bush’s tax plan, like so many Republican tax plans before it, uses what his own dad called voodoo economics — the idea that cutting taxes will jumpstart the economy, kicking it into high gear and creating lots of jobs and growth. But this plan has never worked.

The economy started to grow rapidly about three years after the Reagan tax cut in 1981, because in the years between the tax cut and the boom in growth, Reagan raised taxes. Reagan raised taxes 11 different times during his presidency.

Take a look at the job creation and GDP numbers in the U.S. There has been no correlation between tax rates and GDP growth. In fact, GDP growth was much higher, on average, when our taxes were also much higher. To be clear, higher taxes did not cause higher GDP growth, the economy grows despite higher tax rates.

The benefit of Bush Sr.’s tax cuts went heavily to the rich, and Jeb’s are more of the same. Under Jeb’s plan, the wealthy would see four times the tax reduction of the middle class. The assumption here is that giving rich people lots of money is the best option because they will use the money to make jobs for poor people, and to invest in the economy and create lots of growth. This, too, is not supported. Lower taxes do not create additional growth or revenue.

Even the Republican head of the Congressional Budget Office, using dynamic scoring (essentially assuming large economic growth for future projections), admits tax cuts do not pay for themselves.

With investment, the logic does not support supply side either. Even Warren Buffett, possibly the most successful investor in history, admits this. It does not make a difference if the return is taxed at 10 percent or 40 percent, nobody in their right mind would leave the money on the table. Tax rates do not dictate, or even affect, investment.

Rich people and businesses are doing better now than they have ever done. If having money was the cause of job creation, our employment would be at an all-time high. This has not happened, because a rational person will keep as much money as they can, until spending money (hiring someone) will actually make them more money. Taxes only come off the extra money you make. Many businesses also pay laughable tax rates in the U.S. and store wads of cash overseas to avoid paying.

We have the highest corporate tax rate, but we also have so many deductions that few businesses pay more than 13 percent in taxes. So the question that supply siders need to answer is, “Where are all the jobs?” If supply-side economics were correct, there has never been a time when more jobs should be created.

The argument that many Republicans make for this supply-side dream is an argument against the policies of the Obama administration, saying, as Bush did on Sunday, “This idea that you can regulate and tax and spend your way to prosperity has failed.” The only problem is that Obama has not had his pick of the policy harvest.

Tax rates are still well below historical average. As for the spending side, most of the spending under President Obama is either mandatory spending — Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc — or military. Non-defense discretionary spending is at one of the lowest points it has ever been, and it is only going to fall further. The argument that the tax and spend “Obamanomics” has failed does not have a logical base. Taxes are still historically low, and any spending that might be Obama’s choice is also at an all-time low.

Nobody likes paying taxes. Lower taxes means more take home pay, but the fact is, right now, it hurts the country. With spending on the “fun” stuff so low and the government still running deficits, albeit shrinking ones, we cannot afford to cut taxes without taking away Social Security and Medicare from seniors. Cutting taxes means heaping even more debt onto the younger generation, digging their economic hole even deeper. We have to get rid of the idea that cutting taxes will cause economic growth.

Matt Young is a journalism and political science senior.

opinions@ 50.63.25.108