Nicely researched post Rigger, however you manipulated the data quite dramatically to support your argument. I'll start with specific counterpoints and then move on to a few broad generalizations about why those comparisons don't work.
The 20's - I'm not even going to bother with, like comparing apples to oranges. In 1915 5% of the population payed taxes, in 1920 it was 20%. Only the super rich were even taxed to it isn't an apt comparison.
Kennedy cuts - You chose random years to help your argument. The cuts were enacted in 64 not 61. From 61 to 64 tax revenue grew steadily to a peak of 156 billion in 1964. When the tax cuts happened revenue dropped in 65 and then slowly recovered back to 153 billion in 1968. So revenues did drop dramatically.
Reagan cuts- Again you chose two convenient years. If you take the tax in 1981 and multiply by 10 even assuming no growth you would have higher tax revenues than what was actually taken in from 1981 to 1991. Thus, decrease in revenues.
All of that data is available here. http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxcollections.htm
The other main reason that these comparisons don't work right now is because we are at a near historic low in terms of tax rates. In the three periods you quoted tax rates were between 70 and 90 percent on the high ends. Currently our highest bracket is 35%. And that's just income tax, many of the super rich make most of their money off capital gains and dividends which are taxed at a much lower rate.
Conservatives often like to point out the Laffer curve, which I'm sure your familiar with. It is important to recognize that the curve shows a single peak of effective tax rates, anything higher OR LOWER than that reduces revenues. The second part is often left out. There is strong arguments to be made that a 70-90 percent tax rate is too high. It is. However there is a bottom too of the correct rate and I think we are way under it now.
cale
The 20's - I'm not even going to bother with, like comparing apples to oranges. In 1915 5% of the population payed taxes, in 1920 it was 20%. Only the super rich were even taxed to it isn't an apt comparison.
Kennedy cuts - You chose random years to help your argument. The cuts were enacted in 64 not 61. From 61 to 64 tax revenue grew steadily to a peak of 156 billion in 1964. When the tax cuts happened revenue dropped in 65 and then slowly recovered back to 153 billion in 1968. So revenues did drop dramatically.
Reagan cuts- Again you chose two convenient years. If you take the tax in 1981 and multiply by 10 even assuming no growth you would have higher tax revenues than what was actually taken in from 1981 to 1991. Thus, decrease in revenues.
All of that data is available here. http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxcollections.htm
The other main reason that these comparisons don't work right now is because we are at a near historic low in terms of tax rates. In the three periods you quoted tax rates were between 70 and 90 percent on the high ends. Currently our highest bracket is 35%. And that's just income tax, many of the super rich make most of their money off capital gains and dividends which are taxed at a much lower rate.
Conservatives often like to point out the Laffer curve, which I'm sure your familiar with. It is important to recognize that the curve shows a single peak of effective tax rates, anything higher OR LOWER than that reduces revenues. The second part is often left out. There is strong arguments to be made that a 70-90 percent tax rate is too high. It is. However there is a bottom too of the correct rate and I think we are way under it now.
cale
