It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
"Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911
What exactly have I not proven? That you're summary of tax receipts by year is wrong? I think I have justifiably proven that with the same source you told me yourself to use. If that's not proving something in your mind, I can't get past your partisan blinders. Oh well.
And as far as your accusation is concerned that I have not proven that reducing taxes does not raise overall tax revenues, I wasn't trying to. I was pointing out that nobody has proven as such either way. It's nothing more than a hypothesis without fact no matter what side you are on. There is no correlating proof either way, that's the fact.
But, I don't really think you care to hear those facts. You have your preset partisan blinders keeping in one direction that will get you to the only result you desire.
IF, as you have asserted, revenues are more than enough to fund the basic functions of government, we would not be facing an ever growing deficit
anticipating your rebuttal, that revenues are being used to fund unConstitutional activities, i will challenge you in advance to identify which of our budgetary items have been found by the courts to be unConstitutional