'What happens if we instead raise tax rates? Economists of all persuasions accept that a tax rate hike will reduce GDP, in which case Hauser's Law says it will also lower tax revenue. That's a highly inconvenient truth for redistributive tax policy, and it flies in the face of deeply felt beliefs about social justice. It would surely be unpopular today with those presidential candidates who plan to raise tax rates on the rich – if they knew about it.'

Sad faces in nocalville. :(

Well, heavily tax the ritch and they stop investing. Than I start shopping at the .99 cent store for dinner.

Sad faces in nocalville. :(

What makes Hauser's Law work? For supply-siders there is no mystery. As Mr. Hauser said: 'Raising taxes encourages taxpayers to shift, hide and underreport income. . . . Higher taxes reduce the incentives to work, produce, invest and save, thereby dampening overall economic activity and job creation.'

oh so basically, like i always say, rich people have the ability to pay money to accountants and lawyers to get around tax laws, for one.

but i have no problem with the top tax bracket being 35%, like it is suggested in the article.

also this guy taught econ at the university of chicago in the 70s, has a 'currency watch' newsletter that trumpets gold, and is exceedingly ugly/surrounds himself with ugly people, so he is definitely a libertarian. this is so boring.

He uses the words 'fact' and 'truth' a lot when talking about economic theories; which at best can only set vague guidelines of prediction due to the complexity of real markets.
Also, he apes the phrase 'inconvenient truth,' which suggests he is trying to be more polemic than informative, not to mention trite beyond all reason.
You can almost hear him in the background quixotically shouting 'TAKE THAT AL GORE and YOU STUPID LIBERALS!'

It makes me think he might be missing something.