In absolute numbers no, if you cut taxes revenues will still rise due to other factors. However, revenues will not rise as much as they would have had taxes not been cut.
If you want to test your logic, would you argue that cutting federal taxes down to say, $1.00 per person per year would lead to an increase in federal tax revenues?
You might as well make it $0 for that silly example...
Well, I am not exactly the economist, but I think your above point is more an example of the law of diminishing returns than an argument against cutting taxes. The other side of that coin is the obvious truth that over taxation reduces revenue just as surely as over reduction of taxes. An example of "logic" of the type to which you refer would be the imposition of a tax of 99% per person per year of their income. Not likely to lead to increased revenue.
I think though, that I am right in stating that the Reagan years demonstrated that lowering tax rates does not have to lower tax revenue.
None of this helps to reduce spending deficits if congress isn't paying attention to national income vs expense.
At this moment in time, I have read that American citizens are being taxed at a historically high rate, equal to that of WWII, the highest in our history. Arguably, much of the tax revenue is absolutely needed national defense, comes to mind for instance. But if we quit spending it on massive social engineering programs and bureaucracies and other areas where our gov't has overstepped its constitutional bounds, I think it safe to say that tax revenues could be substantially reduced with no ill effects. Quite the contrary in fact, removing the state from areas where it has no business would probably be pretty beneficial.
Unless one thinks that it is in our interest for gov't to spend our money for us, on the assumption that it would do it more responsibly, for instance not overborrowing! Or that the gov't, in a free country, even has the right.
Your example is not valid because you have changed the progressive income tax to a flat per capita tax.
100% Tax rate - 0 Revenue
Somewhere between 0 and 100 is the maximum revenue.
The question is do you think we are on the left or right side of the peak? Evidence is we are on the side of diminishing returns with increased taxes.
Again, not true. Read some of the information in the links I provided.
Oppressive taxation harms the economy as a whole, thereby decreasing govt. revenues. Is it possible to have too low of a tax? I would suppose that it's theoretically possible, but the reality is we'll never see it.
Your extreme example of a $1.00 tax entirely misses the point and ignores reality. Try reversing the logic and ask yourself: would a 100% income tax on citizens and corporations would permanently end the govt's budget woes? Clearly, both are invalid examples.
The fact is, given the real level of taxation with which we live, cuts stimulate the economy and result in more revenue.