As for GDP, I suggest you look at Warren Brookes, "The Economy in Mind" for an assessment of the JFK tax cuts (which sparked significant growth). On the Reagan tax cuts, try "The Supply Side Revolution." Reagan's economy created 14 million (!!!!!~!) NET new jobs. Bush's smaller cuts created 6 million. Clinton, in between, still rode the Reagan cuts.
The historical evidence of the 20s, 60s, 80s, and 2000s is that whatever happens to the rich, cutting their taxes is the fastest route to increase the SHARE of taxes paid by the rich. That's why rich libs are ALWAYS in favor of increasing tax RATES, because they know the TAX REALITY and REVENUE will go down if rates go up.
As to GNP, GNP is based on a number of things, including high energy prices which dampens economic activity and overregulation. Since the 20s, we have been heavily overregulated, even in the Reagan years where there was some deregulation.
The historical evidence of the 20s, 60s, 80s, and 2000s is that whatever happens to the rich, cutting their taxes is the fastest route to increase the SHARE of taxes paid by the rich. That’s why rich libs are ALWAYS in favor of increasing tax RATES, because they know the TAX REALITY and REVENUE will go down if rates go up.
_____________________________________________________________
Yep this makes perfect sense because when they pay a lower rate they expose more of their money to taxation instead of funneling it into shelters and when they use their money for investments in capital they create jobs and that means more taxpayers on the margins and less people on welfare and unemployment.
Funny how the liberals never mention JFK's 1963 tax cuts when they want to slam supply side tax cuts, or as they like to say, "trickle down economics." That's probably why Reagan used JFK as an example when he was selling his own tax cuts and economic policy.