It was actually on the democrat side with John F. Kennedy that originally proposed, after that extremely steep progressive taxes in the 1950s, what people would describe today as "enormous tax cuts for the rich." JFK understood the effect of such a proposal wasn't to make the rich pay less but to actually pay more and be more honest.
You're right, of course. Hauser's Law - for those who haven't heard of it- simply implies that the mega-rich have an army of tax lawyers- whose salaries are deductible- to concoct gerrymandered means of shielding as much wealth as possible from the IRS. The more money that is shielded, the less these is available for economic expansion. So regardless of tax RATE, the actual amount in tax DOLLARS stays fairly smooth.
The way I see it is constants over variables. Corruption appears to be a constant with high marginal tax rates. We look at Estonia who settled on flat-rate income tax and they got surplus after surplus, but in ways that contradicted all projections of experienced economists because even the experienced economists grossly underestimated the impacts of the grey economy (i. e., corruption).It makes no sense to say the rich are so corrupt and simultaneously favor higher tax rates for them thinking they would pay them. In practice, we're giving them more incentives not to pay. Hauser's Law as I see it highlights an interesting trend in the probabilities of corruption aligning with incentives for corruption.How unmanageable do we have to make things for even fairly honest people to become corrupt? How much inconvenience is required to turn an honest user turn into a software pirate? I see it that way. If films or video games cost $200, we will probably see far more piracy. The mistake people make setting such prices is that people will just pay more.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions