"Low tax rates are a necessary condition for the kind of growth the United States has experienced at times."
Sigh.
You throw out terms like "low" and "high" without quantifying them. And they need to be quantified, else you are just hand waving. Which is what puts the "laff" in the Laffer Curve.
You will get no argument that, say, a 99% tax rate is too high. And that, say, a 1% tax rate would be a lot better. But that says absolutely nothing about tax rates in between the two extremes. Because, if for no other reason, it isn't a smooth function like the Laffer Curve pretends. Because it really shouldn't be a curve, but a vague step function. Granted, a curve is a lot easier to explain to the ignorant, but it doesn't really shed any light.
"The reasonable inference is that well might have happened sooner had the rate cuts come sooner."
Possibly. But the economy was hardly in the dumps during the post-WWII era. But, what the heck. 91% was probably on the excessive side. Obviously 70% wasn't too bad, else the economy would have been more sluggish. If it had grown much faster, that would have caused a bunch of problems, too. So by your thesis, a top rate of 70% is pretty good.
"Okay, unemployment increased by nearly 60%. Not doubled."
Right. And the rate of increase has slowed considerably. It isn't like unemployment was stagnant, you know. As the rate of the stimulus money being spent increases, the rate that unemployment has been increasing has decreased. It has gone negative yet, but that is a reasonable extrapolation. |
