I'm fairly confident that a 67 year period is a long enough to show if there's a trend or not.
Pluswhich, if higher marginal tax rates CAUSED higher periods of economic growth, then a 99% tax would maximize economic growth, wouldnt it?
I never said that higher tax rates CAUSED higher growth but upon rereading my post I see how it can be read that I was inferring that. I wasn't, so I'm sorry for not being clearer. The Congressional Research Service report I posted concludes that even though there is a correlation between higher marginal tax rates and higher GDP growth there is not a strong enough statistical connection for there to be causation.
Further, has the Laffer Curve been disproved?
It has to be be proved before it can be disproved. And if it has been proved you need to then go on and prove that the current top rate is on the right-hand side of the curve and not on the left-hand side of the curve.
Additionally, Hausers Law, postulates that US federal revenues, as a percentage of GDP, have remained stable at approximately 19.5% over the period 1950 to 2007 despite changes in marginal tax rates over the same period. Doesnt that show that changes marginal rates are merely avoided by citizens by changing their economic behavior and presentation of taxable income to the Feds?
Hauser's Law also has its own problems while not technically incorrect the way it is explained by Hauser is very misleading in that there is over a 1% GDP difference in collections between tax cut years and tax hike years.
Do you believe the CBO is an unbiased source for Tax Policy advice? Or, mightnt they be biased towards the source of their paychecks?
The report I posted was by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) not the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). And while The National Review does take exception with the conclusions of this report as a whole they write that it is silly to accuse services like the CRS of being partisan.
I posted before I read your #10.