Quote:The Laffer curve is a display of government income vs. tax rate. Consider, if taxes are zero then there is zero government revenue. If taxes are 100% then there is also essentially zero government revenue because only a fool would work for income under that condition (barring totalitarian labor at gunpoint, essentially slavery). But as the tax rate moves from those two extremes revenue is generated. There is some tax rate where revenue is maximized.


The Laffer curve was used to justify cutting taxes under Reagan, which did generate jobs.
When taxes were cut under Reagan revenues also rose, as predicted. That doesn't mean that Reagan chose the ideal tax rate, just a better one than under Carter.


And calling the act of people keeping more of their hard-earned money "redistribution" is a claim only a Marxist would love.

Correlation does not imply causation. Consider this... why did the increase in taxes at the upper level under Clinton result in a bigger increase in job creation compared to the job increase under raygun when he cut taxes at the upper level?


The job increase was a result of the business cycle and other factors. It's been debunked that lower tax rates result on an increase in jobs. It's just not true. It's a lie that people are finally waking up to.


Also, taxes are a part of a society. Cutting the taxes of the wealthy, thus adding extra burden on the middle class is absolutely a redistribution of wealth. If you want to say I'm a Marxist because I believe that those that get the most benefit from our society should pay a progressive rate of taxes, so be it.


Or, I just may be a normal American that sees things differently than you... one of those two

---