• The post you are reporting:
   
  But Keith... I am not talking about opinion but evidence. We have the evidence in the UK going back to when Mrs T reduced top rates of tax initially to 50p (top rates previously was an appalling 85p on earned income, more on so called unearned). Then again a few years later when it reduced to 40p. In both cases the amount of tax collected from the 10% highest earners increased significantly. Economists do not disagree with this, the figures are clear.
  
  We also had the reduction in tax when the top rate went up to 50p. There is no disagreement here either. The figures speak for themselves.
  
  You may accept Gordon Brown's actions (and inactions) as confirming the same effect. He did not increase the higher rates of tax during 13 years of being in power. Why? because he knew doing so would reduce tax income and damage growth. He only raised higher rates, or proposed to, when he was up against a wall in the dying days of his government as a political trap.
  
  There are also worldwide examples of the same effect.
  
  There there is computer modelling - accepted by economists, the Laffer curve being a famous example of this.
  
  Take as well empirical evidence and common sense. Yes this is more arguable but it does re-enforce the case and provides human behavioral evidence that explains the recorded impact.
  
  So there Keith. This is not to do with differing opinions of economists. This is about what actually happens.
  
  So what evidence do you have to counter that or do you prefer to ignore the facts as established by the evidence?

Report Post

Your Name

Reason