Agreed both the assumptions you and I mentioned are pretty annoying and ridiculous.

Read a few posts above this one that I wrote. I addressed this question already. What does it prove that I, or anyone else, can't answer this question?

That it's a faith-based tool for shaping debate based anywhere that isn't reality and not the least bit scientific or provable in nature?

Booooooosh confirmed GOAT trollololol.

You realize that if we agree that the Laffer curve is useless for determining tax revenue, then the best estimate we have for the effects of changing tax policy on government revenue is "all else being equal, cutting taxes always decreases revenue, and raising taxes always increases revenue," right?

I would fistpump snapvote for Mitler with a Booooooosh VP pick.

I agree under the condition that you agree that the assumption that cutting or raising tax rates and revenues will follow is, "a faith-based tool for shaping debate based anywhere that isn't reality and not the least bit scientific or provable in nature."

I don't truly believe the Laffer curve is useless in the real world.

Do you realize that prefacing "all else being equal" takes "cutting taxes decreases rev & raising always increases revenues" out of any real-world solution since we know there are too many moving variables to count?

The laffer curve isn't useless, its point is that tax revenue isn't a linear function of tax rates and that revenue can actually decrease when you raise taxes, which is all true. This means that you shouldn't do simple back-of-the-envelope calculations when trying to work out the expected change in tax revenue resulting from a change in tax rates, you need a more complicated model using empirically estimated elasticities.

You have to be able to do better than this.

It's LirvA.

That made a lot of sense when the top marginal rate was 94%. There's a thing called 'the law of diminishing returns' that applies to tax cuts like everything else. At this point tax cuts are in no danger of paying for themselves. In fact they have never in our history paid for themselves, not even when the top rate went from 91% to 77% in 1964 under JFK.

If you want to be entitled to 100% of what you work for please move to a third world country where you won't have to pay taxes. I hear they have terrific roads, police, and very well educated workers for you to employ. I've also heard great things about their court systems ability to enforce contracts--because if you couldn't do that you'd be ****ed right? If that doesn't sound like a good idea to you then please accept that the we have to pay for the public services we receive.

When the people near the bottom of the tax brackets (the ones who actually pay taxes... negative income taxes are a totally different conversation) start bitching about taxes I get it. They don't have much, and giving away some of it stings. When people near the top bitch I'm stunned. Just stunned. They're the single largest beneficiaries of this country, and they think they have a right to everything this country provides them free of charge. At this very moment they don't have to employ a private army to protect their multiple luxury homes. They have educated workers to employ. They have access to the best markets to sell their products in the world. They don't have a corrupt government official shaking them down for a % (which could very likely be higher than our current top marginal tax rate). They just have to pay their taxes and everything will be fine.

If they feel like crying they can pick a shoulder other than mine... Because I have absolutely no sympathy. I don't begrudge them their success, I've had some myself. I've also paid my taxes without crying about it.

Needs to be a show on FX.

Republicans: doubling down on factually incorrect assertions since the founding of Fox News!

1. Get the "pay for themselves" thing out of your head. If you are meaning to say that lower tax rates will net less tax revenues then say that, but stop saying they wont pay for themselves. By the way have you EVER seen any proof an income tax cut didn't pay for itself (to answer this question you must stop thinking like a liberal and start thinking long term)?

2. Where have you seen that anyone has seriously supported 0% income taxes lately? Even if you find one person, the point is most conservatives would not support it.

3. Here are the avg. tax rates (from the Congressional Budget Office) from each quintile: bottom 20%= 1%, 2nd 20%= 6.8%, 3rd= 11.1%, 4th= 15.1%, and top 20%= 23.3%. I assume you don't want to get into the % of tax revenues that come from the top earners in this country since that can paint any even uglier picture against your argument.

4. By "free of charge" do you mean they pay a ridiculous majority of taxes?

5. I have never heard a rich person ask for your sympathy. However, I do think we should have an annual holiday for them since they pay for all the great services the govt provides us. Maybe call it the "thank a rich person day" or "do something nice for the people who make this all possible day".

Who pays more % of income in taxes?

b