[Tribune7]

I should add that the WSJ ranted for years that the Laffer Curve "proved" that reducing tax rates would increase revenues.

Tax rates have been cut after which revenue increased. Of course whether a cut causes an increase depends upon the what was the rate was and how much was the cut. But that's what Laffer was saying. He may have been flakey -- I'll take your word since I didn't know him -- but he was certainly right about this particular concept.

[Torie]

To close this off, a 70% rate, which is what we had pre Reagan for unearned income, is too high. A 50% rate for earned income is pushing it, if local taxes are on top. And distinguishing between earned and unearned income is nefarious ecnomically. It may not reduce revenues, but it does probably distort. But to invoke supply side when we are talking about top rates of 30% to 45% is just silly. There is no evidence that Laffer's napkin comes into play in that zone at all. And arguing for a break for capital gains over other income is even more dubious, although it would, and to the extent it is play does, benefit moi hugely.