- Are we supposed to believe that a 38.6% tax creates almost no jobs, but a 39.6% tax creates huge amounts of jobs?
- That 35% is the magic number for no jobs, and 28-31% will get you some jobs?
And what's up with these ranges anyway?
- Why do you bother to but the 38.6% number on the chart (in effect for one year) -- and not put the 92% tax bracket on the chart, which was in effect for two years?
- Is it because at 92% tax, there was negative job growth (-1.0), so you hide that in a 90+ category?
- You wouldn't be using ranges for the high income tax brackets because you know that job creation goes up predictably with a few blips during recessions, and by averaging out over long periods of time you're guaranteed a nice, high value... nahh, couldn't be.
- Is it because including the 63% and 73% tax brackets from the 1930's and the pitiful growth associated with that period would destroy the illusion you're trying to put together?
Those folks at the Center for American Progress are a real class act.