[quote=SK in CV][quote=AN][quote=SK in CV]It’s the higher historical top tax rates (>50% marginal rate) that can be shown to have been stimulative, where tax savings actually provide a 50% or more subsidy for investment.[/quote]
Again, causation vs correlation.[/quote]
Absolutely. Both logical and high correlation over multiple periods.[/quote]
Again, you might claim that it’s correlating, but your original quoted statement is saying it’s the cause. Higher historical top tax rates cannot be showing to have been stimulative. If anything, one can say, during good economic growth, you can have high tax rates and it won’t affect growth. But the inverse cannot be assumed. If high rates are stimulative, then then why did we have negative GDP when rate was 90+%? Another example, when we have 37.5-42.4% top marginal rate, we have higher GDP growth than when it was 42.5-62.4%.
