I won't disagree that it demonstrates the possibility that these specific tax cuts led to tax receipts increases. But I'm not sure this is a convincing argument when discussing the net revenue effects of tax cuts today.
So the tax cuts were enacted when the federal income tax was 8, 11, and 13 years old. Income taxes were pretty young, and it's fair to say that the complexity of their interaction with the entire national economy was several orders of magnitude less than they are today.
But the principles of what created this phenomenon haven't changed. The central issue is that the more governments tax, the more effort people will put into tax avoidance. Furthermore they will withdraw their money from the most productive (incoming producing) uses (because greater taxation has created and incentive for them to do so). When government reduces tax rates, the incentives change. People put much less effort into tax avoidance and they put more money to productive uses which leads to...
Now, what caused the stock market expansion?
Isn't the most sensible explanation that when people have less of their money confiscated by the government, they have more of it to spend and invest?
Quite true. However there appears to be a pattern that is exhibited in the 1920s, 1960s and 1980s tax rate reductions. Greater economic growth. More people making more money. Increased tax revenue. See these:
You have a correlation. The question is what is the causal relationship? Is it that:
1) government reduces the amount of money is confiscates from people
2) because of 1, people have more money to spend and invest (and do)
3) because of 2, an expansion of the stock market occurs
Your example has a much, much larger time gap than mine, so that statement discredits your example much more than it discredits mine. It should be obvious that the Bush tax cuts are a much more relevant metric to practical discussions of today's tax policy than the 1920s tax cuts.
This would be true if the basic principles involved don't apply. But they do. It might also be true if their weren't other examples from the 1960s and the 1980s.
Don't make the mistake of assuming because you've seen only a single briefing to mean that the tax cuts in the 1920, 1960s and 1980s haven't been extensively analyzed by "economists from a diversity of the political spectrum".
Though I'm sure you wouldn't deny the conservative and "Free Market" philosophy and agenda of The Cato Institute, I'm not going to try to attack your source. But since my sources references the conclusions of multiple economists based on extensive Congressional Budget Office data, including a study by the Presidents own Treasury Department, I'll call your source significantly less reliable than mine.
However, for full-disclosure, it should be noted that the link you provided ("TAX CUTS: MYTHS AND REALITIES") is from the "Center on Budget and Policy Priorities" which couldn't be fairly described as a source of "economists from a diversity of the political spectrum". This organization is best described as a liberal "think tank".
I don't point this out as an ad hominem argument, but merely for full and fair disclosure.
First, I haven't claimed that the Bush tax cuts, specifically, "paid for themselves". I simply pointed out that the relationship between tax rate cuts and tax revenue increases or decreases is an "it depends" kind of thing. Not a slam dunk in either direction. Though there appears to be a pattern of showing that tax rate cuts can, and do, lead to greater economic growth and increased tax revenue.
BTW, personally, I don't care to see the government get additional tax revenue except for the purpose of reducing outstanding debt. I've stated before that I believe tax cuts should be accompanied by spending cuts (particularly in the three largest budget items...social security, welfare and defense). I also think that the the government's ability to take on debt or inflate the money supply (another surreptitious form of taxation) should be eliminated or significantly curtailed to prevent the government from shifting its spending burdens to others (e.g., the poor, future generations, borrowers, lenders, etc.)
Second, I've never claimed that "tax cuts automagically lead to LESS spending".