That analysis is rubbish.
Look at revenue as a % of GDP. It remains remarkably constant in the face of changes to the marginal tax rates.
When the top marginal rate dropped in the early 80s (hugely dropped from a top rate ~70%), tax revenues initially fell by a percent or two, then came back up.
The goal should always be to have the very lowest rate of taxation possible to support spending that is required. Required as in mandated by the Constitution. Defense. Interstate trade, perhaps. Entitlement spending is pretty indefensible constitutionally. I'm fine with a "safety net." That's great, but really look at the analogy. You put safety nets up where people MIGHT fall. You don't sting them up, then push every single person nearby off into the nets. The vast majority of Americans should never see any "safety net" money. None. It should be a fraction of what it is now, only designed to protect the people who have nothing else.
Spending needs to be cut, period. Current spending as a % of GDP is grossly higher than it should be, and the problem is not the discretionary budget, but "programatic" spending (entitlements).
|