I believe yfs point was progressive taxation is a bad idea because it costs the rich more but they get less out of it. I don't understand how your comment meshes with yfs. Care to elaborate?
In fact, the US economy is strong because it is relatively low in taxation and regulation, compared to other economies around the world. This shows the benefit of low taxes (for everybody). You guys focus on the rich because you want to pretend like you're just taxing the rich, figuring most voters are not rich. But whether you tax the rich or the poor, taxes lower the standard of living and slow economic growth.
You can see proof of this just by looking at states and the countries and seeing which ones do better than others.
Also, I'd love to see a study that compares the economic effects of unilateral taxes vs. progressive taxes. Given that $X needs to be procured, what is the most cost-effective progression?
[citation needed]
Seriously, where do you get this delusion? Do you mean those low-tax post-war years when the annual growth rate was around 5% and the top marginal tax rate was between 87 and 70%? If you are going to make claims that low taxation and regulation have been a comparative advantage for the US then be prepared to back it up with reputable comparative studies.
If the proof can be found just by looking at tax levels and comparative standards of living then please explain why Norway is kicking our ass.
Denmark 50% of GDP taxed, $56,115 GDP per capita
Sweden 49.7%, $43,986
Belgium 46.8%, $43,533
France 46.1%, 42,747
Norway 43.6, $79,085
Netherlands 39.5, $48,222
US 28.2%, $46,381
PS. I wish I had some statistics chops to see if there's any correlation between these two lists of tax rates and gdp per capita. My hypotheses is that there's not.