Here's the bottom line: there is an optimum point somewhere between 0 and 100% tax rate in which you will maximize revenue (if thats your goal). The problem is that point WILL vary with other variables in the system. So NO, you CAN'T simply claim that lowering tax rates will increase revenue. If you are already at (or to the left) of the critical point then lowering further will LOWER revenues.
Actually, I was referring to the tax refund thing that came just before the crash. My bad. The 2001 tax cut coincided with the tech boom, so it's not easy to separate the effects of a tax cut from other effects. Revenues did briefly improve, but not for long. If you want to claim tax cuts did all that, then when we look at the recession, which came after another tax cut and the rebate, it shows them to be ineffective. But again, the tech boom seems to have had quite an influence all around. Then there is the consumer debt thing like we saw in 2008. What did tax cuts/rebates do for that? Can we isolate the two influences on the revenue? Like I pointed out above, there are other factors that can play as big a role, if not bigger. The fallacy in the claim that tax cuts result in revenue increases is in valid because you can't prove one results in the other. Pointing out the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is not a strawman, it's stating why the argument is invalid. (And calling it a strawman is a red herring.) Why do you keep trying to drag me into a discussion I've already said I will not take part in? Seriously, I don't like either party.
