Quote from achilles28:
Again, this is more clap-trap. Would you work just as hard as you do today for 20% of your paycheck? Instead of the ~70%+ you keep now? Do you honestly think any American laborer, entrepreneur or investor would risk thousands of hours of sweat equity and precious, hard-earned capital to only keep 20 PERCENT of their gross profit? This is laughable and beyond comprehension. There's so much disinformation out there, it becomes a headache to weed through it. Those Laffer studies do not include pre-1980's China, Russia, India, Africa and much of South America. They do not include them for a reason. That reason is socialism/communism and Government expropriation are the norm in those countries (read: ~excessive taxation), which creates EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE conditions Laffer studies predict = grinding third-world level, shithole poverty. When Keynesian economists set out to make the case for socialism/communism, they don't include social/commie 3rd world hell holes in their research. However, they do include the very few and notable examples where it has worked (Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Germany), point to the Nordic Tigers as the New Way Forward, and conveniently sweep one thousand years of economic history under the rug, hoping nobody will catch on. For every socialist success story, a Germany or a Sweden, there are TWENTY COUNTRIES where socialism/communism failed miserably, with terrible human consequences. What the spoon-fed pap eaters need to understand is they're being sold revisionist history. Keynesian's are talking their book. Their studies are cherry-picked to prove a forgone conclusion which ignore the gaping holes that would render socialism and communism an unworkable fraud (in >95% of cases). High regulation, high taxes and central banking all go hand-in-hand. Conventionally, we refer to that system of Government as socialism. In order to make Central Banking palatable, the Keynesian's have to make socialism palatable. This is their stock in trade. This is the problem with liberal arts degrees. Social sciences are a mixture of art and science. Plenty of room for interpretation depending on the ideological starting point. Most of these trained PhD's you put so much faith in, are indoctrinated with one side of the story, given a very narrow and slanted interpretation of their field, are graded and accredited based on their allegiance to that narrative, then go out in their "productive years" and regurgitate papers and books that are in accordance with that fairy tale. Then, the idiot laymen hold up their work as "impartial" and "unbiased", not understanding how the "authorities" they trust were indoctrinated themselves (effectively a sophisticated form of propaganda), and go on to regurgitate their regurgitations, thinking themselves as somehow learned and on the "cutting edge" of intellectual thought. The net result is an echo chamber where societies underlyings repeat what their academic "authorities" have to say, who are basically victims of propaganda, themselves, to varying degrees.
As far as America and it's 90% tax rates in the US, only on paper. The top income earners paid nowhere close to that amount because the IRS included generous exemptions. I think the effective rate was around 40-50%. Another canard the Keynesian love to throw out there... As for the post-war boom era, all the major industrial powers were destroyed and were forced to rebuild. America was the only country of significance with an industrial capacity left, and essentially rebuilt the world with it's exports. That's why we boomed. Not because of some retarded 95% tax rate nobody paid.... This is the propaganda they're feeding you.
