Hi clo,
I agree with your argument regarding the blindingly obvious proposition that in circumstances where tax rates appear low by historical standards, taxing higher income earners a little more will raise more income for the government.
The Republican position that lower tax rates always generate higher tax yields appears to be ahistorical. On a matter this important, you'd think they'd produce strong evidence that they are correct. Here's a study that supports a different view. http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/austan.goolsbee/research/laf.pdf
The Republican position that the funding of innovation in the US will efficiently emanate from the wealthiest 2% is also a hard argument to make when Norway, with its more egalitarian tax structure, shows higher rates of entrepreneurialism (and a higher GDP per capita) than the US.
At a minimum, it seems the burden of proof for a counter-intuitive theory - like the Laffer curve - belongs with the theorist. I am willing to consider the theory may have merit when tax rates are relatively high. But I'd like to see the evidence to support that idea.
It has seemed to me over the last 30 supply side years that Republican fiscal policies consistently create deficits. To close the current deficit demands the resumption and continuation of economic growth, and I think it would be helped a bit by higher tax yields on higher income earners.
Even so, legitimacy in a democracy is conferred periodically via the ballot box, rather than continuously via polls. I hope that the Republicans listen to the popular hum.
| 
