I agree. Let's not debate.

By the way, have you looked at the charts contrasting tax rates with economic activity and GDP, particularly in the last twenty years? That may be why don't hear very much about the Laffer Curve or the theory of Taxable Income Elasticity anymore.

Is the Laffer Curve theory still valid? Yes. But it is far less powerful than when it was first put forth 30-40 years ago. The main reason is structural changes in our economy, particularly among consumers, mostly in the last decade. For years, during which Arthur Laffer came up with his theory, the U.S. had a negative savings rate. Like the government, consumers were heavy spenders, borrowers, and did no saving. That has changed. The current savings rate among consumers is about 3-1/2% of their income. Almost all economists believe that this structural change is relatively permanent.

George Bush found out how dissipated the old theory of taxable income elasticity when he had a a couple tax redutions enacted in his second term. They took the form of rebates. What happened was that the consumers applied almost all the rebate tax refunds to savings. That is, almost none of it was used for spending, consumption, increased demand and all the things that reduced taxes had resulted in when savings wasn't in the picture.

In round numbers, in order for the Laffer theory to have any effect given the changes in consumer behavior, income taxes would have to be reduced substantially more than 3-1/2%. That would be a HUGE tax reduction given the fact that the average personal tax rate in the U.S. is only about 13-1/2%. If taxes were reduced by, let's say 7%, there's a chance the Laffer theory would kick in. But that would almost double our annual deficit from about $1.4 trillion to almost $2.7 trillion. That's the main reason why reduced taxes are not likely to be the solution to the problem of lagging GDP.

But like I said, let's not debate this anymore.