Ifyou think raising taxs will bring in more money than this thread is for you.

[bigrebnc1775]

You can watch the whole video or cut to time frame 3:49 Charlie Gibson asked obama in the 2008 democratic debat. "why raise taxes when lower taxes brings in more money" Or something like that.


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akLlxxWaJZM&feature=related[/ame]

 

[shintao]

You can watch the whole video or cut to time frame 3:49 Charlie Gibson asked obama in the 2008 democratic debat. "why raise taxes when lower taxes brings in more money" Or something like that.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akLlxxWaJZM&feature=related

Your video is cut into sound bites, it isn't even in sinc, so I have no idea who is saying what to whom, or about what. Frankly it belongs at Comic Central. Have anything with credibility to share, do let us know.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You can watch the whole video or cut to time frame 3:49 Charlie Gibson asked obama in the 2008 democratic debat. "why raise taxes when lower taxes brings in more money" Or something like that.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akLlxxWaJZM&feature=related

"Taking from the rich through much higher tax rates in order to help the poor and middle class makes no sense intellectually and has seldom worked in practice. Reducing rates, on the other hand, does increase the share of taxes paid by the highest income-earning group. For example, in 1981, when the highest tax rate on the rich was 70% and the top capital gains tax rate was close to 45%, the richest 1% of Americans paid 17% of total income taxes. In 2005, with a top income tax rate of 35% and capital gains at 15%, the richest 1% of Americans paid 39%."
New Evidence on Taxes and Income
By ARTHUR B. LAFFER and STEPHEN MOORE
September 15, 2008; Page A23 http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB122143692536934297.html


We need to relearn the lessons of the 1990s, when tax cuts helped ignite growth. Take the Giuliani administration’s elimination, in 2000, of the tax on clothing purchases under $110. The next year, employment at city stores that sold clothing jumped by 7,000 jobs—and collections from the sales tax actually increased by $52 million, as more New Yorkers stayed in the city to shop for taxable as well as nontaxable items.
The City’s Finances, Part 1: Life in Taxopolis by Steven Malanga, City Journal 10 July 2009


A review of tax data for high-income earners in the 1920s shows that as top tax rates were cut, tax revenues and the share of taxes paid by high-income taxpayers soared. Secretary Mellon knew that high tax rates caused the tax base to contract and that lower rates would boost economic growth. In 1924, Mellon noted: "The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business." He received strong support from President Coolidge, who argued that "the wise and correct course to follow in taxation and all other economic legislation is not to destroy those who have already secured success but to create conditions under which every one will have a better chance to be successful."

Internal Revenue Service data show that the across-the-board rate cuts of the early 1920s-including large cuts at the top end-resulted in greater tax payments and a larger tax share paid by those with high incomes. As tax rates were cut in the mid-1920s, total tax revenues initially fell. But as the economy responded and began growing quickly, revenues soared as incomes rose. By 1928, revenues had surpassed the 1920 level even though tax rates had been dramatically cut. 1920s Income Tax Cuts Sparked Economic Growth and Raised Federal Revenues | Veronique de Rugy | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You can watch the whole video or cut to time frame 3:49 Charlie Gibson asked obama in the 2008 democratic debat. "why raise taxes when lower taxes brings in more money" Or something like that.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akLlxxWaJZM&feature=related

Your video is cut into sound bites, it isn't even in sinc, so I have no idea who is saying what to whom, or about what. Frankly it belongs at Comic Central. Have anything with credibility to share, do let us know.

I told you where to start watching

OK here you go

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDBu35K-8[/ame]

 

[PoliticalChic]

You can watch the whole video or cut to time frame 3:49 Charlie Gibson asked obama in the 2008 democratic debat. "why raise taxes when lower taxes brings in more money" Or something like that.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akLlxxWaJZM&feature=related

Your video is cut into sound bites, it isn't even in sinc, so I have no idea who is saying what to whom, or about what. Frankly it belongs at Comic Central. Have anything with credibility to share, do let us know.

I told you where to start watching

OK here you go

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDBu35K-8[/ame]

1.Cultural elites and intellectuals, such as Christopher Lasch, state that “economic inequality is intrinsically undesirable…Luxury is morally repugnant, and its incompatibility with democratic ideals, moreover, has been consistently recognized in the traditions that shape our political culture…[A] moral condemnation of great wealth must inform any defense of the free market, and that moral condemnation must be backed up with effective political action.” Christopher Lasch, “The Revolt of the Elites, and the Betrayal of Democracy,” p. 22

Extension of this view changes democracy into socialism: the political ‘one person, one vote,’ becomes the economic mandate of socialism.

a. The desire for equality of income or of wealth is, of course, but one aspect of a more general desire for equality. “The essence of the moral idea of socialism is that human equality is the supreme value in life.” Martin Malia, “A Fatal Logic,” The National Interest, Spring 1993, pp. 80, 87

2. Since one cannot see any objective harm done to the less wealthy by another’s greater wealth, the explanation for the ‘economic equality imperative’ can only be envy. The resentment of luxury in another is evil, in that there is no benefit to depriving others with no gain to ourselves. What is the satisfaction of seeing the better off lessened.

a. President Clinton proposed raising taxes on the rich, even though it didn’t appear that it would increase tax revenues. A sizable portion of the public agreed, even under these circumstances. The motive can only be envy.

3. . [We wish] a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, but shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement. Thomas Jeffeson.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Your video is cut into sound bites, it isn't even in sinc, so I have no idea who is saying what to whom, or about what. Frankly it belongs at Comic Central. Have anything with credibility to share, do let us know.

I told you where to start watching

OK here you go

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDBu35K-8[/ame]

1.Cultural elites and intellectuals, such as Christopher Lasch, state that “economic inequality is intrinsically undesirable…Luxury is morally repugnant, and its incompatibility with democratic ideals, moreover, has been consistently recognized in the traditions that shape our political culture…[A] moral condemnation of great wealth must inform any defense of the free market, and that moral condemnation must be backed up with effective political action.” Christopher Lasch, “The Revolt of the Elites, and the Betrayal of Democracy,” p. 22

Extension of this view changes democracy into socialism: the political ‘one person, one vote,’ becomes the economic mandate of socialism.

a. The desire for equality of income or of wealth is, of course, but one aspect of a more general desire for equality. “The essence of the moral idea of socialism is that human equality is the supreme value in life.” Martin Malia, “A Fatal Logic,” The National Interest, Spring 1993, pp. 80, 87

2. Since one cannot see any objective harm done to the less wealthy by another’s greater wealth, the explanation for the ‘economic equality imperative’ can only be envy. The resentment of luxury in another is evil, in that there is no benefit to depriving others with no gain to ourselves. What is the satisfaction of seeing the better off lessened.

a. President Clinton proposed raising taxes on the rich, even though it didn’t appear that it would increase tax revenues. A sizable portion of the public agreed, even under these circumstances. The motive can only be envy.

3. . [We wish] a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, but shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement. Thomas Jeffeson.

True true and true.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You can watch the whole video or cut to time frame 3:49 Charlie Gibson asked obama in the 2008 democratic debat. "why raise taxes when lower taxes brings in more money" Or something like that.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akLlxxWaJZM&feature=related

Lower taxes don't bring in more money. It's a comical post hoc fallacy that even more comically has become the foundation of modern conservative economic lunacy.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You can watch the whole video or cut to time frame 3:49 Charlie Gibson asked obama in the 2008 democratic debat. "why raise taxes when lower taxes brings in more money" Or something like that.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akLlxxWaJZM&feature=related

Lower taxes don't bring in more money. It's a comical post hoc fallacy that even more comically has become the foundation of modern conservative economic lunacy.

Argue that with Charlie Gibson. He made the statement and asked the question.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Maybe if you hear the truth from a real live Reagan revolutionary you'll listen:

DAVID STOCKMAN (NY Times Op-Ed)

IF there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nation’s public debt — if honestly reckoned to include municipal bonds and the $7 trillion of new deficits baked into the cake through 2015 — will soon reach $18 trillion. That’s a Greece-scale 120 percent of gross domestic product, and fairly screams out for austerity and sacrifice. It is therefore unseemly for the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, to insist that the nation’s wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase.

...

Republicans used to believe that prosperity depended upon the regular balancing of accounts — in government, in international trade, on the ledgers of central banks and in the financial affairs of private households and businesses, too. But the new catechism, as practiced by Republican policymakers for decades now, has amounted to little more than money printing and deficit finance — vulgar Keynesianism robed in the ideological vestments of the prosperous classes.

...

The second unhappy change in the American economy has been the extraordinary growth of our public debt. In 1970 it was just 40 percent of gross domestic product, or about $425 billion. When it reaches $18 trillion, it will be 40 times greater than in 1970. This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.

...

In 1981, traditional Republicans supported tax cuts, matched by spending cuts, to offset the way inflation was pushing many taxpayers into higher brackets and to spur investment. The Reagan administration’s hastily prepared fiscal blueprint, however, was no match for the primordial forces — the welfare state and the warfare state — that drive the federal spending machine.

Soon, the neocons were pushing the military budget skyward. And the Republicans on Capitol Hill who were supposed to cut spending exempted from the knife most of the domestic budget — entitlements, farm subsidies, education, water projects. But in the end it was a new cadre of ideological tax-cutters who killed the Republicans’ fiscal religion.


Through the 1984 election, the old guard earnestly tried to control the deficit, rolling back about 40 percent of the original Reagan tax cuts. But when, in the following years, the Federal Reserve chairman, Paul Volcker, finally crushed inflation, enabling a solid economic rebound, the new tax-cutters not only claimed victory for their supply-side strategy but hooked Republicans for good on the delusion that the economy will outgrow the deficit if plied with enough tax cuts.

and so on...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=opinion

 

[NYcarbineer]

You can watch the whole video or cut to time frame 3:49 Charlie Gibson asked obama in the 2008 democratic debat. "why raise taxes when lower taxes brings in more money" Or something like that.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akLlxxWaJZM&feature=related

Lower taxes don't bring in more money. It's a comical post hoc fallacy that even more comically has become the foundation of modern conservative economic lunacy.

Argue that with Charlie Gibson. He made the statement and asked the question.

No I want to argue it with YOU, unless of course you 1) don't believe it or 2) believe it but aren't man enough to defend it...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Maybe if you hear the truth from a real live Reagan revolutionary you'll listen:

DAVID STOCKMAN (NY Times Op-Ed)

IF there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nation’s public debt — if honestly reckoned to include municipal bonds and the $7 trillion of new deficits baked into the cake through 2015 — will soon reach $18 trillion. That’s a Greece-scale 120 percent of gross domestic product, and fairly screams out for austerity and sacrifice. It is therefore unseemly for the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, to insist that the nation’s wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase.

...

Republicans used to believe that prosperity depended upon the regular balancing of accounts — in government, in international trade, on the ledgers of central banks and in the financial affairs of private households and businesses, too. But the new catechism, as practiced by Republican policymakers for decades now, has amounted to little more than money printing and deficit finance — vulgar Keynesianism robed in the ideological vestments of the prosperous classes.

...

The second unhappy change in the American economy has been the extraordinary growth of our public debt. In 1970 it was just 40 percent of gross domestic product, or about $425 billion. When it reaches $18 trillion, it will be 40 times greater than in 1970. This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.

...

In 1981, traditional Republicans supported tax cuts, matched by spending cuts, to offset the way inflation was pushing many taxpayers into higher brackets and to spur investment. The Reagan administration’s hastily prepared fiscal blueprint, however, was no match for the primordial forces — the welfare state and the warfare state — that drive the federal spending machine.

Soon, the neocons were pushing the military budget skyward. And the Republicans on Capitol Hill who were supposed to cut spending exempted from the knife most of the domestic budget — entitlements, farm subsidies, education, water projects. But in the end it was a new cadre of ideological tax-cutters who killed the Republicans’ fiscal religion.


Through the 1984 election, the old guard earnestly tried to control the deficit, rolling back about 40 percent of the original Reagan tax cuts. But when, in the following years, the Federal Reserve chairman, Paul Volcker, finally crushed inflation, enabling a solid economic rebound, the new tax-cutters not only claimed victory for their supply-side strategy but hooked Republicans for good on the delusion that the economy will outgrow the deficit if plied with enough tax cuts.

and so on...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=opinion

What ever happen 3 decades ago worked what happening right now isn't.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Lower taxes don't bring in more money. It's a comical post hoc fallacy that even more comically has become the foundation of modern conservative economic lunacy.

Argue that with Charlie Gibson. He made the statement and asked the question.

No I want to argue it with YOU, unless of course you 1) don't believe it or 2) believe it but aren't man enough to defend it...

OH I believe it I wouldn't post it if I didn't believe in it. I do not need any books to know that tax cuts works foir the better. It worked in the 80's and it will work again

 

[Political Junky]

According to the logiic of those who endorse Voo Doo Economics, we should abolish taxes and we'd be swimming in money.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Maybe if you hear the truth from a real live Reagan revolutionary you'll listen:

DAVID STOCKMAN (NY Times Op-Ed)

IF there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nation’s public debt — if honestly reckoned to include municipal bonds and the $7 trillion of new deficits baked into the cake through 2015 — will soon reach $18 trillion. That’s a Greece-scale 120 percent of gross domestic product, and fairly screams out for austerity and sacrifice. It is therefore unseemly for the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, to insist that the nation’s wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase.

...

Republicans used to believe that prosperity depended upon the regular balancing of accounts — in government, in international trade, on the ledgers of central banks and in the financial affairs of private households and businesses, too. But the new catechism, as practiced by Republican policymakers for decades now, has amounted to little more than money printing and deficit finance — vulgar Keynesianism robed in the ideological vestments of the prosperous classes.

...

The second unhappy change in the American economy has been the extraordinary growth of our public debt. In 1970 it was just 40 percent of gross domestic product, or about $425 billion. When it reaches $18 trillion, it will be 40 times greater than in 1970. This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.

...

In 1981, traditional Republicans supported tax cuts, matched by spending cuts, to offset the way inflation was pushing many taxpayers into higher brackets and to spur investment. The Reagan administration’s hastily prepared fiscal blueprint, however, was no match for the primordial forces — the welfare state and the warfare state — that drive the federal spending machine.

Soon, the neocons were pushing the military budget skyward. And the Republicans on Capitol Hill who were supposed to cut spending exempted from the knife most of the domestic budget — entitlements, farm subsidies, education, water projects. But in the end it was a new cadre of ideological tax-cutters who killed the Republicans’ fiscal religion.


Through the 1984 election, the old guard earnestly tried to control the deficit, rolling back about 40 percent of the original Reagan tax cuts. But when, in the following years, the Federal Reserve chairman, Paul Volcker, finally crushed inflation, enabling a solid economic rebound, the new tax-cutters not only claimed victory for their supply-side strategy but hooked Republicans for good on the delusion that the economy will outgrow the deficit if plied with enough tax cuts.

and so on...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=opinion

What ever happen 3 decades ago worked what happening right now isn't.

Reaganism began the era of massive peacetime deficits. Cutting taxes did not increase revenues. It's mythology. It is as preposterous as it should appear at first glance to anyone with a brain .

Lower taxes and increase revenues? It's absurd on its face, and no, the further complicated convoluted pseudo-erudite explanations of why it works even though it appears counterintuitive are also baloney.

It doesn't work any more than some crackpot fad eat-as-much-as-you-want-and-still-lose-weight diet works...

...of course people buy into that sort of nonsense every day.

Why? Why do people believe the absurd? Usually because it's what they really really really really want to believe.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Argue that with Charlie Gibson. He made the statement and asked the question.

No I want to argue it with YOU, unless of course you 1) don't believe it or 2) believe it but aren't man enough to defend it...

OH I believe it I wouldn't post it if I didn't believe in it. I do not need any books to know that tax cuts works foir the better. It worked in the 80's and it will work again

The 80's accumulated what? 2 trillion of debt with those tax cuts. What worked in the 90's? when we got good growth, good job creation AND an eradication of the deficit?

Hint: it wasn't tax cuts.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Maybe if you hear the truth from a real live Reagan revolutionary you'll listen:

DAVID STOCKMAN (NY Times Op-Ed)

IF there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nation’s public debt — if honestly reckoned to include municipal bonds and the $7 trillion of new deficits baked into the cake through 2015 — will soon reach $18 trillion. That’s a Greece-scale 120 percent of gross domestic product, and fairly screams out for austerity and sacrifice. It is therefore unseemly for the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, to insist that the nation’s wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase.

...

Republicans used to believe that prosperity depended upon the regular balancing of accounts — in government, in international trade, on the ledgers of central banks and in the financial affairs of private households and businesses, too. But the new catechism, as practiced by Republican policymakers for decades now, has amounted to little more than money printing and deficit finance — vulgar Keynesianism robed in the ideological vestments of the prosperous classes.

...

The second unhappy change in the American economy has been the extraordinary growth of our public debt. In 1970 it was just 40 percent of gross domestic product, or about $425 billion. When it reaches $18 trillion, it will be 40 times greater than in 1970. This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.

...

In 1981, traditional Republicans supported tax cuts, matched by spending cuts, to offset the way inflation was pushing many taxpayers into higher brackets and to spur investment. The Reagan administration’s hastily prepared fiscal blueprint, however, was no match for the primordial forces — the welfare state and the warfare state — that drive the federal spending machine.

Soon, the neocons were pushing the military budget skyward. And the Republicans on Capitol Hill who were supposed to cut spending exempted from the knife most of the domestic budget — entitlements, farm subsidies, education, water projects. But in the end it was a new cadre of ideological tax-cutters who killed the Republicans’ fiscal religion.


Through the 1984 election, the old guard earnestly tried to control the deficit, rolling back about 40 percent of the original Reagan tax cuts. But when, in the following years, the Federal Reserve chairman, Paul Volcker, finally crushed inflation, enabling a solid economic rebound, the new tax-cutters not only claimed victory for their supply-side strategy but hooked Republicans for good on the delusion that the economy will outgrow the deficit if plied with enough tax cuts.

and so on...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=opinion

What ever happen 3 decades ago worked what happening right now isn't.

Reaganism began the era of massive peacetime deficits. Cutting taxes did not increase revenues. It's mythology. It is as preposterous as it should appear at first glance to anyone with a brain .

Lower taxes and increase revenues? It's absurd on its face, and no, the further complicated convoluted pseudo-erudite explanations of why it works even though it appears counterintuitive are also baloney.

It doesn't work any more than some crackpot fad eat-as-much-as-you-want-and-still-lose-weight diet works...

...of course people buy into that sort of nonsense every day.

Why? Why do people believe the absurd? Usually because it's what they really really really really want to believe.

Why do I believe what reagan did worked? Because I lived it I lived through Carter and Reagan it worked. I am a living history of the times.

 

[shintao]

"Taking from the rich through much higher tax rates in order to help the poor and middle class makes no sense intellectually and has seldom worked in practice.

When have the rich helped the poor and middle class? They haven't even paid for their war yet.

 

[wihosa]

I bet most of you are too young to remember a time before huge federal budget deficits. Until Reagan cut taxes on the rich the total debt accumulated from President Washington up through President Carters was less than on trillion dollars. Carters largest budget deficit was around 65 billion and that was during a minor recesion (when tax revenue inevitably falls). Reagan pushed through his cuts and set off the era of soaring deficit and mounting federal debt.

From the 1950's until 1980 taxes on income over about three million dollars a year were no less than 70 percent, yet the economy had a great run, and wages rose with gains in productivity. Since then wages have been flat with the vast majority having no gain in real wages (adjusted for inflation).

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I bet most of you are too young to remember a time before huge federal budget deficits. Until Reagan cut taxes on the rich the total debt accumulated from President Washington up through President Carters was less than on trillion dollars. Carters largest budget deficit was around 65 billion and that was during a minor recesion (when tax revenue inevitably falls). Reagan pushed through his cuts and set off the era of soaring deficit and mounting federal debt.

From the 1950's until 1980 taxes on income over about three million dollars a year were no less than 70 percent, yet the economy had a great run, and wages rose with gains in productivity. Since then wages have been flat with the vast majority having no gain in real wages (adjusted for inflation).

I was born in 1961 I knowexactly how things were when Carter was President and Reagan you are a liar.

 

[Old Rocks]

You can watch the whole video or cut to time frame 3:49 Charlie Gibson asked obama in the 2008 democratic debat. "why raise taxes when lower taxes brings in more money" Or something like that.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akLlxxWaJZM&feature=related

"Taking from the rich through much higher tax rates in order to help the poor and middle class makes no sense intellectually and has seldom worked in practice. Reducing rates, on the other hand, does increase the share of taxes paid by the highest income-earning group. For example, in 1981, when the highest tax rate on the rich was 70% and the top capital gains tax rate was close to 45%, the richest 1% of Americans paid 17% of total income taxes. In 2005, with a top income tax rate of 35% and capital gains at 15%, the richest 1% of Americans paid 39%."
New Evidence on Taxes and Income
By ARTHUR B. LAFFER and STEPHEN MOORE
September 15, 2008; Page A23 http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB122143692536934297.html


We need to relearn the lessons of the 1990s, when tax cuts helped ignite growth. Take the Giuliani administration’s elimination, in 2000, of the tax on clothing purchases under $110. The next year, employment at city stores that sold clothing jumped by 7,000 jobs—and collections from the sales tax actually increased by $52 million, as more New Yorkers stayed in the city to shop for taxable as well as nontaxable items.
The City’s Finances, Part 1: Life in Taxopolis by Steven Malanga, City Journal 10 July 2009


A review of tax data for high-income earners in the 1920s shows that as top tax rates were cut, tax revenues and the share of taxes paid by high-income taxpayers soared. Secretary Mellon knew that high tax rates caused the tax base to contract and that lower rates would boost economic growth. In 1924, Mellon noted: "The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business." He received strong support from President Coolidge, who argued that "the wise and correct course to follow in taxation and all other economic legislation is not to destroy those who have already secured success but to create conditions under which every one will have a better chance to be successful."

Internal Revenue Service data show that the across-the-board rate cuts of the early 1920s-including large cuts at the top end-resulted in greater tax payments and a larger tax share paid by those with high incomes. As tax rates were cut in the mid-1920s, total tax revenues initially fell. But as the economy responded and began growing quickly, revenues soared as incomes rose. By 1928, revenues had surpassed the 1920 level even though tax rates had been dramatically cut. 1920s Income Tax Cuts Sparked Economic Growth and Raised Federal Revenues | Veronique de Rugy | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary

Ah yes, all these nice theories. So why did the economy crash? You had your tax cut for the rich, why are we all not doing great at present?

And why did the economy boom after Clinton raised taxes in 1993? According to all this nonsense, that should have been impossible.

Laffer curve? Really good for a laugh.