You said less taxes equal more revenue, so would that mean zero taxes equal infinate revenue?
Or suppose a government took a clean 10% of the GDP as tasks, through all different means of course, and this economy was worth $100. That would mean the government was taking 10 dollars as revenue and the rest was in the economy. Now if the government reduced its tax rate to 5% of GDP, again taken from different sources but amounting to 5%, that the economy with that injection of an extra 5% of GDP would in fact grow to being worth over $200? That would be required to exceed the 10 dollars the government was originally getting in taxes, a full doubling of the entire economy.
Is that what you are saying is reality?
I want to believe you know better than this. Tax is not assessed as a percent of GDP. Tax collected may be analyzed that way, and your analysis fails with regard to what is meant by "less is more".
Tax is assessed per transaction. Whether it be income earned, money spent, investment earnings, corporate profits, death tax, tolls, or the owning of property in yearly increments, etc.
1) If one keeps tax levels frozen, but increases the number of taxed transactions in any given time frame, as you know revenue increases. That is the plan with keeping the tax rates as they are now.
2) Or if one increases taxes but is able to maintain the same level of transactions, revenue increases. This is usually seen as being unlikely to result this way, as raising taxes puts direct pressure on reducing the number of transactions. This is borne out by the net result of millionaire taxes in NY and MD generating less revenue from millionaires, as they took their transactins elsewhere. It is also seen as a very bad idea in a recession.
3) Or if one reduces the tax rate, such as by 5%, but increases transaction rate, by such as 10%, then that is your "less is more" model. This was successfully demonstrated by JFK, Reagan, and W. After suffering the tranaction decreasing effects of the Clinton Recession and 9-11, once W had the tax cuts in place, revenue increased smartly from 2003 to 2007. Our current recession is all the fault of the Housing Bubble burst, which had nothing to do with the Bush Tax Cuts, and was due entirely to the intervention of Government in the housing market, bastardizing capitalism. It was a process that got legs in the late 90's, and continued unabated until the pop.
Look it up liberals. Reagan's tax cuts had a profound positive effect in increasing revenue. He also never had a Congressional majority, and for every $2 increase in revenue, Congress spent $3. Even so, he paved the way for the boom 90's, when a Republican House worked with a Democrat President and were collectively very effective.
