Yes, those rates were so high that many dudes spent a lot of time & money trying to evade them.
[Quote=Sam Stone]
I think you could make a good case for Laffer-curve revenue gains when taxes were reduced under Kennedy and under Reagan, because they started from a pretty high place.
[/quote]
Except that if you were to make such claims, you would have to lie, because the effect of Reagan’s 1981 tax cut was twofold. 1) It dramatically reduced revenue. 2) It led him to institute the largest tax INCREASE in US history shortly thereafter.
Lower taxes bring in more revenue because lower taxes increase incentives to work.
Lower taxes mean nothing to a society’s slackers, moochers and the shiftless, but a society’s productive, ambitious and hard-working see lower taxes as increased reward for work. So they work more, and the gov’t takes a smaller slice of that person’s larger income. Both the worker and the gov’t come out ahead.
Well, that certainly settles that!
Have a cite for that, or did you pull it out of your ass? Warren Buffett disagrees with you. Are CEOs working harder now than they did under Clinton? People who achieve a lot are driven by very different goals from what you may think.
The slackers you seem to hate so much are often poor people working two minimum wage jobs to try to support their families. They work harder and in worse conditions than those of us making 10X what they do.
Please point to an example of this actually ever.occurring in reality.
See all this stuff here? This is what you want to be true, not what is true. You’re thinking with your heart, not your head. You’re wishing, rather than being realistic and relying on facts and evidence. You’re a dreamer.
It’s good to have dreams, but you also have to keep in touch with reality.
Now, just a second! Faith based “witnessing” is specifically permitted in GD.
If you are right, then lowering taxes means money for government. More dollars going to EPA. More foreign aid. A higher budget for the National Endowment for the Arts. And, I suppose, more for listening in to Angela Merkel’s phone calls. Are you really for all that?
Maybe you are. But most of your fellow taxcutters are hoping that lower taxes will result in less government. True, this starve the beast idea is disproven, but they may not be aware of the evidence just provided.
I try to do my best at my job regardless of the tax rate. If you ask me, the slackers are the ones saying “I’m not going to do my best work until the government lowers my taxes.”
That said, I have never met anyone who says that. Ever.
Taxes are not supposed to be a reward. They’re not meant to be a punishment, either. They’re a way to pay the bills.
Yes. And that way everyone will become a millionaire. There’ll be distributions of ponies. And cake !
Last time taxes were lowered, I ran straight to my boss begging for more hours. :rolleyes:
put your money where your mouth is. find me a quote from one republican who says that tax cuts always bring in more revenue.
Why not? There are so many examples. I quoted Charlie Gibson. There are other examples as well; the latest being George W. Bush who cut taxes and the govt began collecting record amounts of revenue. Then there is the fella from OK saying the same thing.
I am certainly opposed to saying that tax cuts always bring in more revenue. But in our current situation, it seems that we are way on the wrong side of the Laffer curve.
This is why leftists are so stupid. When they are confronted with facts that contradict their cherished narrative, they dismiss these facts by discrediting the source. Most fourth graders who study logic understand this to be a logical fallacy. Grow up.
Haha!! you want him to provide proof that people respond to incentives? seriously? I suppose next you are going to ask us to provide proof that people hate paying taxes. 
The revenue didn’t come from the tax cuts. The revenue came from the swelling bubble of toxic home mortgages being supremely high dollar values. In other words, had they NOT dropped taxes, they would have collected even higher revenue.
I gave you a handy-dandy chart showing taxes versus federal revenue and demonstrated that there was a direct correlation to the ups and downs outside of large economical shifts. As the tax rate dropped, the revenue dropped, too. GASP!
It’s pretty clear there’s little point in engaging you, but start here:
Please cite an instance of lower taxes leading to increased revenue.
Here are the times in the last 70 years that had taxes going down while revenue increased.
Is there an explanation for that data? And what it’s source?
Lower (and higher) taxes are always followed by both increased and decreased revenue at differering time intervals. So I didn’t quite understand your challenge.