Try to find a prominent Democrat who actively supports a ban on abortion (Harry Reid doesn't count since his support is merely rhetorical).

Maybe racial and sexual equality?

I think a democratic politician can get their walking papers pretty quickly for questioning either of those. Not that it always happens, just as republicans aren't immediately gone if they question reganomics, but you very rarely hear them say such a thing twice in succession.

Or perhaps support of Israel?

That goes for both parties, however.

Ending the Iraq War

Good point, jamie! If you ignore the pro-life Democrats, including the friggin' Senate Majority Leader, then none of 'em are pro-life

I can't think of anything, Kevin. We're not even all objectively anti-goatblowing.

Maintenance of the Separation of Church and State.

'Totemic appeal.' I'd have said Social Security, but was recently proved wrong. Maybe the New Deal? Do even Bush Dogs say that the New Deal was a mistake?

Oh! Or the Department of Education. That's a sacred cow among dems, if by 'sacred cow' you mean that they don't want to abolish it entirely.

35% is the top bracket, isn't it? Plus state taxes, payroll taxes, etc.

Although by the time you're at 35%, you've stopped paying payroll taxes, so that should have no effect.

In order to be comparable, it would have to be something that is objectively FALSE. Not a matter of policy choice or opinion, but demonstrably, factually, false.

So, no. There is no Democratic party equivalent.

However, the current top marginal rate in the United States is 33%, and no one in their right mind thinks that's anywhere near high enough to have a serious Laffer effect.

The New York Sun says you're wrong.

www.nysun.com/article/64603

"Reductions in top marginal tax rates provide incentives for growth and lead to greater government revenues in the long run. That is not always the case. There is a point on the Laffer Curve at which tax cuts on the top margin stop generating increased income, but we are nowhere near that point now."

They have several:

Tax cuts cure everything and raise tax revenue
Abortion should be illegal
Bush should always be supported regardless of ....
Government is evil (or some variation of that
Guns are sacred
Fox News is - news

On the Dem side:

Government can be a good thing if run well
People have a right to privacy (you'd think that would be a Republican position - NOT)

Protecting Constitutional rights? The rule of law?

Cranky

Actually I think dr. steveb is right. To be comparable, they have to be false. So, I'll amend mine to

They have several:

Tax cuts cure everything and raise tax revenue
Bush should always be supported regardless of ....
Government is evil (or some variation of that)
Fox News is - news

On the Dem side:

Nada that I can think of

Kay, I usually try to hold back about this kind of thing. But criminy. "Disincentivize"? What's wrong with "discourage"? Not enough syllables? Now I need something to undisincentivize me from reading the rest of the post.

Oh, Christ, Al, find me an actual economist who's studied the question and who thinks the New York Sun is right. That's exactly Kevin and Megan's point -- this belief is entirely a religious one, since it's backed by nothing but faith -- not facts, nothing. The Sun is just one more true believer.

I assume here, of course, that when the the Sun says we're "nowhere near that point," they mean we're still above the point at which tax cuts increase revenue, which is nuts. The statement is ambiguous, however. Most economists agree that we're "nowhere near" the point at which "tax cuts at the top margin stop generating increased income" because we're a good 30 to 40 percentage points below that point.

Jesus Al if liberals said the sun comes out in the daytime you'd say no it comes out at night. Further proof that those who are republicans or conservatives or whatever the fuck they are are 99% full of shit.Oh that 1%. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes.

"The Laffer Curve and the supply siders pushing it seem to be the teacher's unions of the right."

I think every teacher in the US has just been insulted...

I have read a couple studies of the 'laffer curve' where it was attempted to estimate the shape of the curve by real world observation of tax rates and behaviors around the world. They indicated that the optimal point is somewhere near a 75% top marginal rate at fairly high income.

We know we aren't near it now because when we cut those rates revenue decreases, and when we increase them revenue increases.

I believe that Reagan became a republican at about the same time he became a very highly paid chemical company spokesman. He had some, at the time (early 70's?), crazy salary like $100,000 a year and spent a few years touring around giving speeches to chemical plants and hobnobbing with chemical company executives.

Isn't it about time we stopped talking about the Laffer Curve and started talking about simple arithmetic?

"You think cutting taxes RAISES revenue? So if I take more money out of the bank, my account will somehow get bigger? Boy, that sure sounds stupid to me!"

Popular politics in the US is conducted at about a fifth-grade level. We really need to start behaving like we understand that.

I take being a liberal to mean I use reason and evidence to form positions on issues. Conservatives favor absolutes that are independent of measurement, lower taxes is one of those absolutes. To them, lower taxes are always better, even if they aren't.

"As near as I can tell, every single Republican running for president publicly says that cutting taxes always raises revenues..."

Does that mean the same thing as supporting the Laffer Curve?

You could argue that cutting taxes increases revenues because it spurns more growth in an economy.

That's different from my understanding of the Laffer Curve, because the above opinon implies that you might have to accept a slight decrease in revenue at first before seeing increased revenues in the long run.

As for the question of whether Democrats have their own Laffer issue...

Issue: Abortion
Heretic: Harry Reid
Result: Reid elected to Democratic Senate leadership.

Issue: Social Security
Heretic: Bob Kerrey
Result: Kerrey encouraged to run for open Senate seat in Nebraska.

Issue: Affirmative Action
Heretic: Can't think of one off the top of my head.

I'm not saying affirmative action and the Laffer Curve are similar as substantive issues--but rather that I can't imagine a Democrat not endorsing the policy.

The laffer curve adds nothing to the debate, is the general consensus. It's first problem is that it talks about goverment when any market theory has to include both government and non-government.

What is unique about govenment is also what lets us calculate its optimum size. If we could isolate those parts of government that are pay per use, then we can break them off and place them on the income distributions as independent enterprise, what is left is the inherent "wealth" of government.

The residual government should be places on the income distribution such that its distance from the large economic organization to the left is weighted by the relative wealth. The wealth of government must be such that it does not create a large bump at the wealth distribution where it lies.

Simple. Using this method, we would see a large bump after every neo-con administration, for Reaganites love to expand government beyond our ability to pay for it.

jrw, good point. That's also why the party that protects the interests of the rich-the GOP-had to ally with Team Jesus™ in order to keep protecting those interests.

I wonder if the mode of argument in the laffer curve of the republicans is one of the argumentative fallacies?

If not it seems that it should be, it is definitely a common tactic for deceit.

What they are doing is asserting that second order effects outweigh first order effects, while refusing to discuss the conditions under which that might happen.

They do it with tax rates.
They do it with unwanted pregnancy & STD's with regard to contraception.
They do it for social programs (welfare makes people more poor!).

The left almost does it with war as a way to fight terrorism (ie Iraq increases terrorism because we are pissing off more people into becoming terrorists than we are killing terrorists), but I find that there is discussion of conditions. It is not asserted that killing terrorists is never good, just that wrecking entire 30 million citizen nations to get whatever terrorists come to enjoy the war is counterproductive. Afghanistan, by contrast, is far less criticized in this way. Most people on the left figure that at least the Afghan people are approximately as miserable as they were before, and some terrorists really were there.

The New York Sun says you're wrong.

Oh noes! The New York Sun! How could anyone challenge the correctness of every single thing that the 5th-best newspaper in New York City has to say?

But if you reduced the top rate to, say, 50%, maybe Reagan would go ahead and make that third movie,

I'd say that's a pretty good argument for high marginal tax rates, myself.

**

Tax cuts are a code for racism. Nothing more. Conservatives don't care a whit about tax cuts other than that.

I'd say that raising the minimum wage is pretty red meat for Democrats. It's always a guaranteed applause line in speeches.

Of course, long spans of Republican rule have made this an easy subject to care about.

"Teacher performance, ..."

WTF is "teacher performance," anyway except a wingnut's point of complaint? How does a superintendent who rarely, if ever, is in a classroom, know whether it's good or bad? A good school principal, who visits every class regularly (not usual pricipal behavior), might know which teachers are good and which bad. But beyond that kind of intensive review, which is rare and subject to problems itself (principals do not necessarily know good teaching when they see it), I think it's nearly impossible to measure in a concrete way.

My last comment withdrawn for lack of an object.

Social Security comes kinda close.

If Kevin is right, that tax rates are not high enough to serve as a disincentive to working harder, then how to explain the fact that tax revenues typically soar following massive tax cuts? I think the answer is simple: Reagonomics (and more recently, Bushanomics) insured that any economic growth went to the wealthiest, who pay the most taxes, rather than to the poor and middle class, who pay proportionately less in taxes. It has nothing to do with the Laffer curve.

GOP faith in Laffer is so solid, facts just get in the way. I challenge anyone to explain to me how reducing tax rates to ZERO will increase revenues.

The supply-side tax-cuts-for-all Lafferite theory is taken to its extreme in libertarianism (Ron Paul, Cato Institute, etc.) That Republicans embrace it is the only reason that libertarians consider the Republicans to be allies. Which is kind of an odd stance, because the other principles which libertarians hold dear are almost contrary to what Republicans these days are doing (civil liberties, small government, isolationism, etc.).

The quizzical irony is that because of that one issue, "the less tax the better", libertarians have been led down the primrose path and truly believe that Republicans are just like them, except not quite fully perfected.

Ms. McArdle could next try writing in the conservative media that it is possible to oppose a GOP conservative government and still be patriotic. Or that human induced global warming appears likely to be a reality. Or that there could conceivably come a point where massive inequalities in wealth within the US might have some of the same negative impacts they have had in South America. Or that there are some kinds of weapons it might not make sense to allow individuals to possess. Or (perhaps excepting American Conservative) that there is a right of individuals to be secure in their private conversations absent a court warrant to the contrary.

She will rapidly learn a few more lessons about orthodoxy.

dr.steveb: "In order to be comparable, it would have to be something that is objectively FALSE. Not a matter of policy choice or opinion, but demonstrably, factually, false."

Consider what happened to Larry Sommers. I think that many liberal policy positions are based on the strongly held conviction that IQ 1) is measured by biased tests; 2) is mostly environmental not biological; 3) is not correlated with any real world outcome of interest so it can be ignored; 4) must show exactly the same mean and distribution between men and women, social classes and among races. Each of these convictions are disproven by huge amounts of scientific research. The liberal response has been to attack the motives of scientists and the legitimacy of science. That false belief influences many Democratic policies, notably affirmative action, also education and social policies.

Suggest in liberal circles that the belief is false and watch the fireworks start. You can predict with remarkable reliability--it has to be a corollary of Godwin-- that along with all the abusive name-calling, within 30 responses the term "genocide" will be mentioned.

I would suggest that "promoting and increasing racial or ethnic diversity is always good" is a near-universal liberal assumption. Conservatives, for a variety of reasons, generally take the position that it doesn't matter, is only sometimes useful, or is not sufficiently useful to devote time or money.

"Ronald Reagan was a Laffer acolyte because of his days in Hollywood during the era of 90% marginal rates, when actors would sometimes forego making a third or fourth movie during a year because, why bother?" I read that anecdote in David Stockman's long-ago book and didn't believe it then. I still don't believe it. Back in those days movie actors were almost all under contract to one of the studios and received a weekly salaray. They made the movies the moguls told them to make. Never base an argument on data that traces to Ronald Reagan!

You know, even the Reagan example from the days of 90% marginal rates shows why the argument is baloney. As if there was no one else around to make the piece of crap movie Ronnie would have 'starred' in if he'd decided to spend more time chasing actresses.

Oh, come on. Al Shanker was pushing for merit pay and for firing incompetent teachers decades ago. It's so boring to hear the same canards over and over again.

Gun Control.

Megan McArdle? In her right mind? That's the first time I've heard it suggested she has one.

Liberals agree on lots of things, but I just can't think of anything that's enforced quite as ruthlessly as the conservative party line on tax cuts. Any ideas?

You're serious, aren't you? Look at your comments. You're asking fish to tell you what "wet" means. Obviously, according to them, since all liberal positions are by definition right and inarguable, what's the problem with enforcing them ruthlessly?

You can think of answers as easily as I can. To test it out, try out a post taking a serious opposing view to, say, abortion on demand, surrender in Iraq, affirmative action, no school vouchers, or any of a considerable number of liberal sacred cows. See how long you have your job.

Incidentally, are overall tax revenues under current tax policy going rapidly up, or down?

Privatizing Social Security...

Ending affirmative action.

"...then how to explain the fact that tax revenues typically soar following massive tax cuts?"

The explanation is that that is not a fact in any meaningful way.

Revenues soar occasionally, and taxes are cut occasionally therefore when revenue soars taxes were probably cut at some time in the past.

In fact immediately following a tax cut revenue is usually less than what had been previously predicted. This is somewhat obscured by the fact that historically (pre-reaganomics) taxes were typically cut during periods of revenue growth so revenue often would continue to grow for at least a year or two, just more slowly. It is also chronically obscured by the fact that the economy grows almost constantly so revenues tend to go up over time without tax changes.

, since all liberal positions are by definition right and inarguable, what's the problem with enforcing them ruthlessly?

What the holy fuck are you typing about?

Isn't one of the biggest complaints the right trots out about the left the one about how we can never agree on a position? Has this suddenly changed in the past year? Because I heard a whole helluva lot about that before the '06 elections.

But now? Oh no!! We all agree and will vilify our own if they dare to take a contrary position!! MAINTAIN BRAND LOYALTY!!!!!!!!!!!!

Except for, you know, Ezra Klein, MY, even Kevin, and many others -- all of whom have taken a stance contrary to popular liberal belief, only to be still employed and read in the morning.

The GOP has always been an "us vs. them" type of party. Hopefully, the left will never get that way.

PTate in MN wrote, 2) is mostly environmental not biological; ...Each of these convictions are disproven by huge amounts of scientific research.

Simply false. No knowledgeable biologist would say that research shows that IQ is mostly biological (by which I assume you mean genetic). Biologists understand that phenotype is always the result of the interaction of the genotype and the environment.

The problem with claims that "IQ is N% genetic and 100-N% environmental" is that such a claim is based on an additive model (no interaction term). While there may be merit to such models in certain contexts, they're simply false when construed literally. (See what your IQ is if you're raised in an oxygen-less environment.)

Furthermore, while it's pretty clear that a lot of variation in intelligence between individuals is of genetic origin, it's very difficult to look at something like race, because so many things are confounded with it.

harry wrote, To test it out, try out a post taking a serious opposing view to, say, abortion on demand,

As other posters have pointed out, there are many elected Democrats who are anti-choice.

surrender in Iraq

There's no such thing as "surrender in Iraq". Surrender implies fighting a war. There's no war in Iraq. There's an occupation.

affirmative action, no school vouchers, or any of a considerable number of liberal sacred cows.

Lots of liberal writers don't think affirmative action is all that effective vis-a-vis advancing African-American economic status. There are also lots of liberal writers who think that vouchers, in the abstract, are an OK idea.

Incidentally, are overall tax revenues under current tax policy going rapidly up, or down?

"Under the current tax policy" implies an observed trend in tax revenues is necessarily due to tax policy rather than, say, the economic cycle, and hence is a commission of the post hoc fallacy.

Thanks, liberal, the post hoc fallacy, that's a nice description of harry's problem. I could only get as far as thinking he was as dumb as a pile of rocks and as self-satisfied as a pig in mud.

Kevin - Don't forget that no one at the upper end of the income scale pays their marginal tax rates. The combination of low capital gains rates, deductions, tax credits, income caps (on Social Security, for example), etc. virtually assures that the rich pay far less than 35%.

Your point is still true, that 35% would be far below the high point on the Laffer curve, but I think it bolsters your argument even further when you look at effective tax rates (which are in the teens or twenties for most rich people).

Alex Parker:
"You could argue that cutting taxes increases revenues because it spurns more growth in an economy."
This is the entire conclusion of the Laffer curve theory, summed up in one sentence. The leading Republicans simply stopped referring to the 'economics' behind the idea (remember trickle-down theory in the 80's?) and now simply take the conclusion of the theory and refer to it as a mantra. It sounds nice because it implies there are no trade-offs involved in cutting taxes, and everyone hates taxes, so it sounds good. It's all hogwash, but they don't really care about the truth, it's all just a soundbite to them.
Except that Bush tried it out, and it failed, so now they ignore the evidence, and treat it as a matter of faith. That is the whole problem, and the reason why so many people told McMegan in the first place that she was wrong to think the idea had died off. It transformed from a theory that Republicans supported, into an unquestionable 'truth.'

If Kevin is right, that tax rates are not high enough to serve as a disincentive to working harder, then how to explain the fact that tax revenues typically soar following massive tax cuts?
Posted by: Daryl McCullough on October 17, 2007 at 2:30 PM
------
Tax cuts are generally used as an economic stimulus during a recession. In these cases, government spending was NOT cut to compensate for the immediate loss of revenue from the tax cuts. So total individual plus government spending INCREASED. That was what stimulated the economy. The only true way to test the assertion: "Cutting taxes increases tax revenues" is to 1) Cut taxes by X amount. 2) Cut government spending by the same X amount. Then see what happens.

Well, I'll cheat a little and provide instead an ironic double-take on the conservative idea of the "revenue increasing" nature of tax cuts: They say that lowering tax rates will actually raise government revenue, and yet Grover Norquist says he wants to "starve the beast" (the government) by lowering taxes. Does that reveal a little secret conservatives aren't letting on about what they really think lowering taxes does?

tyrannogenius

"Lots of liberal writers don't think affirmative action is all that effective vis-a-vis advancing African-American economic status. "

First of all I'm not sure there are 'lots' of them, and second you are really really stretching to get to your 'lots'.

What Megan did was say that in the context of modern America, the Laffer curve as used as a justification for lower taxes to gain government income was wrong.

If a liberal came up and said that in the context of modern America affirmative action was wrong, would that go over well?

Saying that it isn't super-effective is not the same as saying that you shouldn't do it.

Hmm that was muddled.

Megan is saying that we shouldn't use the Laffer curve to set tax policy.

That apparently didn't go over well, though as a conservative I agree with her.

So what liberal says we shouldn't use affirmative action to set race policy? And presuming you find one, how did that go over? And do you agree with the statement that we shouldn't use affirmative action?

al: The New York Sun says you're wrong.

"As a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves."

-Robert Carroll, deputy assistant Treasury secretary for tax analysis - Oct-2006

Liberals, almost universally, unite for one common belief: we vote for Democrats, believing this time, they might stop being moderate Republicans.

Seriously. No snark intended. Not much of a battle cry to lure non-liberals, too, is it?

"You think cutting taxes RAISES revenue? So if I take more money out of the bank, my account will somehow get bigger? Boy, that sure sounds stupid to me!"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, BLEH. You are thinking on the 5th grade level. If you had read the thread before responding, you would have learned that the Laffer Curve refers to the point of tax rate that discourages further work or investment because "it just ain't worth it anymore"

In the 50s, the top income tax bracket was 90%. That meant one had to earn $10,000 + the total of all other taxes to keep $1,000. The more you made, the lower your effective rate of pay, or return. Eventually you reach the point where it isn't worth producing anymore. Lowering the tax rate gave more incentive for the very rich to invest more time & money which adds to the money available to be taxed. They could again make more investing than just sitting back & collecting interest. The break even point is about 2 years or less.

Another example of the Laffer Curve: In 1980, I was on welfare & a returning college student when I was offered a PT job as a tutor. Because of welfare rules at the time, I was earning only 5 cents per hour after they took the rest out of my benefit. There was no economic incentive to work; I worked that job for about 3 years only for the emotional satisfaction it gave me. Thank God the welfare system makes more sense today.

Also the tax system, although the curve was more well balanced before 2001 than it is today. Further tax cuts at this point would, indeed, lower revenue.

"Under the current tax policy" implies an observed trend in tax revenues is necessarily due to tax policy rather than, say, the economic cycle, and hence is a commission of the post hoc fallacy.

Maybe, but sure as hell if revenues were dropping, you'd be blaming it solidly on Bush tax policies.

We all agree that Dick Cheney is Darth Vader

There's a simple way to tell if taxes are above or below optimal, for economic growth. It's generally understood that the banking system needs about a 1% base interest rate. Anything higher than that is the Federal Reserve essentially putting the breaks on the economy. Lowering taxes puts on the gas. Ergo, if interest rates are higher than 1%, taxes are too low; lowering them further will simply require the Fed to raise rates higher. If interest rates are about 1%, and the economy still needs stimulus, then taxes are too high. That was the case around 2003, but that is the only time I've ever seen it.

"I just can't think of anything that's enforced quite as ruthlessly as the conservative party line on tax cuts. Any ideas?"

No, of course not. First of all, Democrats are not ruthless, period, compared to ReThuglicans. No matter how much the Talking Wingnut Heads want to demonize Nancy Pelosi, she has naught on The Hammer.

Second, nod to Will Rogers, we don't belong to an ORGANIZED political party. We're Democrats.

Finally, we actually DO have the Big Tent, which includes fiscal conservatives (Blue Dogs), religious conservatives (albeit perhaps mostly Catholic), and really smart people in areas like economics, trade and unionism. Consequently, we don't have anything we can ALL agree on.

"Gun Control.

Posted by: jenniebee"

Sadly, no, jenniebee. See Rusty Schweitzer in Montana and the Good Dr Dean, himself for a couple of examples off the top of my head.

Don't really hear about this much anymore after the 2006 election brought more conservative and western Democrats to the House.

Tax cuts have become a shibboleth on the right just as abortion is on the left. Ideolouges drawing lines in the sand and having litmus tests, what's new about that?

This has become such a dreary debate, especially on the state and local level like here in Wisconsin, which still does not have a budget because the GOP has declared even a tobacco tax increase is off the table because, well, it's a tax increase. Of course how one funds a budget by increasing the price of smokes at the same time the government is spending money to encourage people to quit smoking is beyond me as well which partly explain why I didn't major economics.

The left also has another shibboleth and that is the Progressive Tax Code. Yet the Laffer Curve proved that you really don't get as much or even more revenue from a 70% tax rate compared to 35%. The bottom line is, the rich, because they are rich, usually find ways not to pay the top rate. They will either move their money to off-shore tax accounts or buy politicans to drill loopholes in the code that only their accountants know about. The progressive tax code has been one of the most corrupting influences on politics in the last century not in just benefiting the few, but also benefitting select special interest groups and voting blocs as well at the expense of the average tax payer. A few forward thinking leftists have seen through this sham. Remember Jerry Brown flat tax proposal back in 1992? I bet you didn't.

Republicans support supply side economics because its been a political winner for them. Before 1980, the GOP had always been obsessed with spending, which made them look like the party of Scrooge compared to the Democrats' Santa Claus. But Jack Kemp said wait a minute, with supply side economics, we don't have to talk about spending anymore. We just have to focus on tax rates. And since nobody likes paying their taxes, it's easy to camapaign against them. With supply side economics, GOP candidates could say they still could fund popular programs like Social Security and farm subsidies and the voters wouldn't have to pay as much to fund them. Now that's a political winner!

And the Laffer Curve did bring in a lot of revenue (assuming the economy grows at 4% every quarter, every year into infinity). The problem was, the GOP acted the same way any other person would act when they come into a large pile of money unexpectedly: They spend it! And so, like junior New Dealers they cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes and spent and spent and spent and elcted, elected, elected. All the libertarian, anti-government rhetoric, was just that, rhetoric. The modern GOP, so filled with ex-Democrats and Trotskyiests, has no more impulse to reduce government than the Democrats do because they have found it to be both impossible to do and political loser in the long run. And since federal budgeting rules allow you to run large deficits (unlike state constitutions that require balanced budgets) raise debt celings on nothing more than a voice vote, you can get away with it.

Laugh at Ron Paul's support for the gold standard all you want Kevin (although a few of the 2,500 students at the University of Michigan weren't laughing when they lit their dollar bills on fire during Ron Paul's latest rally there) but Ron Paul isn't just talking about cutting taxes, he's talking about fundmentally changing the way we raise revenue entirely that reflects the economy that we have today. And that's the debate we should0 have, how we raise revenue, rather than continuing to pointlessly argue about the relic tax code of the 19th Century.

"....The point of the Laffer Curve, in a nutshell, is that sometimes tax rates can be so high that..." various effects can result in a net decrease of revenues. There is no need to assume only one cause applies. Some of the obvious candidates:
- disincentive to work
- unlawful tax avoidance
- lawful tax avoidance
- less economic activity

The disincentive to work is the least important of those at current taxation rates, which makes it the least effective straw man to use to beat up on the Laffer curve. Net revenue increases for decreased income taxation in regions below 35% are still observed because most income tax is paid by high earners. People who know how to use money generate more effective and efficient economic activity than bureaucracies. They are also better positioned and motivated to avoid taxation than lower earners. If you want to measure the high point of the Laffer curve, start by imposing flat income taxation with very few loopholes. Then tweak the rate.

"Yet the Laffer Curve proved that..."

No, the laffer curve *hypothesized* that at some tax rates increasing the rate would decrease revenues. It is a pretty strong hypothesis that at some rate that is true. There is even some real world evidence that it is true and that that rate is around 75% for a progressive income tax.

The economic right claimed that the current rate was one of those tax rates (at 70%, 50%, 39%, 35%, 33%, and even at the current 15% long term capitol gains tax rate they have made that claim). So far they haven't found one tax rate they will not claim is on the right side of the laffer curve.

"Net revenue increases for decreased income taxation in regions below 35% are still observed because most income tax is paid by high earners. "

The sky is blue because camels live in the desert.

The second part of that sentence is not an explanation for the first part, even though it is true.

Net revenue increases are observed after each time the earth reaches its maximum distance from the sun!

Net revenue increases are observed over time because the economy grows over time. Increase taxes a bit, decrease taxes a bit, or leave taxes the same: revenue tends to go up over the next few years. The same is true of jobs numbers and GDP numbers. What is quite clear, however, is that at current rates tax cuts give less revenue over time than tax increases. It's not like we haven't made various minor cuts and increases over the past twenty years. When we cut revenue increase over time drops, when we raise it increases. In absolute terms it tends to go up, except for brief drops after bigger tax cuts or during recessions, pretty much all the time.

"If you want to measure the high point of the Laffer curve, start by imposing flat income taxation with very few loopholes. Then tweak the rate."

Sigh, there isn't "one laffer curve". There is a different curve for every possible tax system. Change anything about the tax system and the curve should change somehow (even if only slightly). That sort of experiment would give you the shape of the laffer curve for a flat income tax system, it isn't any more real than any other. This is exactly the kind of basic inability to think that makes people into economic right wingers.

The second part of the statement is the explanation, Jefff. All you need to understand is that a dollar in private hands is wasted less frequently than a dollar in public hands.