OK Jules, if the tax rate is zero there are no taxes collected. Do you agree with this? I'm disproving your argument by showing that it does not work in the extreme. If you want to argue that we would never go to the extreme, how large a cut will your theory support? Will your theory work if the tax rate is reduced to one tenth of one percent? How about one percent or two percent? According to your theory every time you cut the tax rate you increase the amount of taxes collected. So assuming that your theory is correct for some tax reductions, somewhere between the current tax rate and zero the increase in taxes collected has to level off and then turn into a decrease. Do you see why this has to be? The question is where is this point? Your theory requires an increase in the size of the economy in order to bring in the additional tax dollars. The larger the tax cut the more the economy has to grow. Eventually the economy runs out of slack resources. It then takes longer for the economy to grow enough to bring in the additional tax dollars. This means that the larger the tax cut the longer it will take the economy to grow enough to bring in the additional tax dollars. At some point we would be exchanging a very real reduction in tax dollars brought in today, tomorrow, next year, and the year after, for an increase in tax dollars a thousand years from now. Do you see why this has to be? Do you see why this renders your theory useless? It's a stupid theory; it's a moronic theory; give it up!

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):