Which is a relatively constant % compared to GDP.
1970:
Top Rate - 71.75%
GDP - 1,038.3 (billions)
Revenue as % of GDP - 19%
Total Revenue - 192.8 (billions)
1990:
Top Rate - 28%
GDP - 5800.5 (billions)
Revenue as % of GDP - 18%
Total Revenue - 1032.1 (billions)
Rates dropped 43.75% and revenues rose more than 535%.
But you seem to be interested in the years of 1980-1987 and 2000-2004, so lets take a look.
1980:
Top Rate - 70%
GDP - 2,788.1 (billions)
Revenue as % of GDP - 19%
Total Revenue - 517.1 (billions)
1987:
Top Rate - 38.5%
GDP - 4,736.4 (billions)
Revenue as % of GDP - 18.4%
Total Revenue - 854.4 (billions)
Rates were reduced by 31.5% and revenues rose by more than 65%.
2000:
Top Rate - 39.6%
GDP - 9951.5 (billions)
Revenue as % of GDP - 20.9%
Total Revenue - 2025.5 (billions)
2004:
Top Rate - 35%
GDP - 11,867.8
Revenue as % of GDP - 16.3%
Total Revenue - 1880.3 (billions)
Rates were reduced by 4.6% and revenues were reduced roughly 7%.
However, in the 40 years of data, revenue had steadily risen every year, whether taxes were raised, lowered, or remained unchanged, and Revenue has only ever dropped once, in 2001 (Which saw the crash of the DotCom bubble and 9/11). Since 2001, revenues have once again remained on the rise whether taxes are raised, lowered, or remain the same.
Therefore, if you are going to continue to claim that Higher Taxes = Greater Revenue, you really should offer some kind of proof. The data available does not support the "trickle up" theory that Higher Taxes = Greater Revenue but it does support what I have said, a Larger GDP = Greater Revenue.
