<p>
[quote]
Well, considering the productivity increases on the top end of the income spectrum currently (most visibly after Bush's tax cuts)...it seems like this should be a visible truth, but apparently it's not.
[/quote]
two responses ...</p>
<p>First, while you see the recent economic performance as evidence of the effectiveness of lower tax rates ... I see a classic Keynsian tax cut which spurs economic growth (while also creating a deficit). The ultimate tax cut President, Reagan took both Keynsian paths that drive econimic growth, tax cuts and increased government spending, and some claim the growth under his watch is "proof" of the effectiveness of a low taxation government ... to me I claim "proof" of classical economic policy of running deficits in the short term will drive a boast in the economy. I'd love to hear an example of a low tax policy driving growth while maintaining anything close to a balanced budget ... do you have one? (BTW - I'd claim the Clinton years is about as close as you can get as we had relatively balanced budgets and very low tax burdens compared to almost all other capialistic economies).</p>
<p>Second, even if I were to conceed on the approach of lowering the tax burden in the US ... why not provide the tax break to the poor and the middle class? By any economic analysis I've read that makes sense providing tax breaks lower in the economy provides more overall positive effect for the economy than providing it to the rich (give bucks to the poor and the money will overwhelmingly be spent on businesses in the local economy) ... so why are the Bush tax breaks so overwhelmingly in favor of the rich?</p>
<p>I can be converted but it will take some good evidence ... evidence I have not seen yet. (for example, even though I am one of CCs socialists I have been convinced that a business income tax is basically counter productive)</p>