1. You are cherry picking information to support your claim.
2. There is no evidence that had tax rates remained unchanged that Revenue as a % of GDP would also remain unchanged. The data shows that even when tax rates remain unchanged, there is a fluctuation in revenue as a % of GDP but you ignore this information because it contradicts, rather than supports, your theory.
3. There is no evidence to suggest GDP would have grown as much as it did regardless of Tax rates.
4. There is no evidence that tax rates are the determining factor regarding Revenue as a % of GDP. The data indicates there is some other factor that determines revenue as % of GDP but again, that contradicts your theory and therefore is ignored.
You are just adding more unsubstantiated claims rather than offering evidence to support your theory.
Yes, let's take a look...
1986-1987:
Tax Rates Decreased from 50% to 38.5%, Revenue as a % of GDP Increased 0.9%.
1990-1991:
Tax Rates Increased from 28% to 31%, Revenue as a % of GDP Decreased by 0.2%.
Sorry PLC, it's only by cherry picking data and ignoring anything contradictory that you can "support" your theory of "trickle up" economics. You have offered no explanations for data that directly contradicts your theory and you have also not offered any evidence to support your other unsubstantiated claims.
