Not a shred that you will accept. Basic math be damned. Raising taxes doesn't result in increased revenue, because you say so. 16% is really the same as 21%, because we wish it were.
Actually, yes, you did, and then used it to say that the only way to increase revenue was to increase the GDP.
I believe your "perpetually higher revenue" is called economic growth. When the economy grows, government revenue grows as well. The problem with your wishful thinking is that the government can't cause economic growth. Meanwhile, we have that 14 trillion debt that has been building up for decades now, and is threatening the solvency of the nation. Said debt started with the absurd notion that cutting taxes will result in increased revenues, an idea subsequently dubbed "voodoo economics" by a Republican president, then later called a "left wing talking point".
Then, you maintain that government revenue has remained a steady 18% of GDP regardless of tax rates, and therefore tax rates don't affect government revenues. When your own link showed a fluctuation of revenues, then you maintained that you meant that the average was 18%, which might be true, but doesn't show that government revenues aren't affected by tax rates.
Now, of course, we all would like to believe that raising taxes, or even keeping the rates the same as they were before the temporary cuts of the Bush Administration, is unnecessary and won't result in increased revenues. After all, no one likes taxes. No one likes real cuts in spending, either. Both are necessary, and to say otherwise is simply... what was that phrase I used before? Oh, yes it is
wishful thinking.
