The economy does better than it would otherwise when the rich have control of the money

"I wonder why you chose a graph that starts with 1945. That is very misleading as to the history of tax rates in the US. When people can't buy things they need for many years , such as the time of WWII, A huge boom would follow in the economy would follow." That simply happens to be when the plurality of studies of tax rates have been conduced. It would be deceptive to show a snapshot before WWII, in fact, since the Great Depression had been ongoing until the military buildup -- not to mention, the tax was implemented in 1914, and was still fairly new. Here's another graph that goes back further. The implication with this one, of course, is that it covers marginal income tax rates alone, rather than effective tax rates. Effective rates are what matter. Nevertheless, we know from the data I provided earlier that rates are quite low relative to what they were historically. Even marginal rate analysis reflects this [1]: Business Insider used several sources, also, to assess tax rates over the past century. They came to similar conclusions as the other studies, in fact. Here's a direct quote [2]: "Super-low tax rates on rich people also appear to be correlated with unsustainable sugar highs in the economy--brief, enjoyable booms followed by protracted busts. They also appear to be correlated with very high inequality." Also, your argument doesn't make much sense at all. Indeed the Depression of the 30s was a time of deleveraging; but are you making the case that high tax rates warded off an inflationary spiral? First, this case undermines your argument that money ought to go to rich people in order to expand -- which, mind you, is our resolution. Second, inflation during and after WWII is part and parcel of what got us ought by chipping away at nominally denominated debt burdens, as Paul Krugman pointed out [3]. Third, are you denying that the buildup for WWII is what ended the Depression? "There are to many things that fell into the 70's to know for sure just why things were getting bad. Recent shift to Fiat currency, Women's liberation, Peak oil production per capita, ect" You should provide sources for these and connect them causally to the poor economy. I'm sure you know, for instance, about the 1973 oil crisis. However, income inequality didn't begin to become noticeable until the late 70s, and then spiralled out of control in the 80s. Several studies that I've provided -- Economic Policy Institute, Congressional Research Service, and Business Insider -- all say the same thing: tax cuts have virtually no impact on growth, but do increase income inequality. I have data on my side, while you have failed to provide any to substantiate your case. You haven't sited the primary authorities on the issue. I have not found any to cite as well. Whom do you deem the "primary authorities?" I've cited the Wall Street Journal, Ben Bernanke, Paul Krugman, Bruce Bartlett, the National Bureau of Economic Research, etc. You haven't provided any sources at all. I see this comment as an attempt to initiate a false equivalency. I found the articles on the success of the Flat Rate tax in Russia at the Hoover Institute website. Well, were you planning to post (and cite) your findings? French movie star Depardieu renounced his citizenship over insane tax rates. The rich will leave countries and go to others depending on the rates. Keeping the rich in one's country is like keeping a skilled worker at your factory, and it takes incentives to keep either. First of all, Depardieu left France when its president wanted to raise the top tax marginal tax rate on over a million euros to 75% from 41% [4]. Tax rates in the U.S. are not even close to 75%, so this argument is a strawman. Also, this is not evidence, but an anecdote. It is a non sequitur to say that because one person left his country -- which, mind you, is quite different from the U.S., anyway -- that tax rates, ipso facto, will make others leave. That's an assertion, but not a fact. I've shown you that rates would need to be much, much higher for people to lose their incentive to work. In fact, the OECD in 2009 conducted a study of U.S. tax rates relative to global rates. Here were the results [5]: This shows that the U.S. is the 32nd-most-taxed industrialized nation. The study concluded, in essence, that effective tax rates are at historic lows. Andrea Louise Campbell concluded that "U.S. tax revenue is not only low but also consistently low, having equaled roughly the same share of the economy for 60 years" [6]. I continue my contention that you have not refuted any of my arguments -- you've ignored them, in fact -- and have not cited a single source thus far to prove your point. 1. http://www.businessinsider.com... 2. ibid 3. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com... 4. http://finance.yahoo.com... 5. http://www.foreignaffairs.com... 6. ibid