This UD Prof seems to be arguing against the idea that cutting taxes stimulates the economy and will lead to increased tax revenues. He starts off the article seeming to disagree with Charlie Copeland but he may be talking about Rep. Mike Ramone’s column. I think I read Charlie agreeing with it somewhere or it may be a news story about taxes that quoted Gerret van S. Copeland, but I digress. So my first impression (and perhaps that of people who stopped reading around there) was that he was against tax cuts. But later he supports the Laffer curve made popular by the Reagan administration but finds it to be weak in predicting actual tax levels at which revenues decrease.
In a surprising turn to the piece, he supports “tax cuts for the rich” but not for those with lower incomes who still pay taxes, aka the middle class!
Yet, while cutting very high tax rates (those on the downward slope towards 100 percent) creates higher revenues; the curve also tells us that when you cut tax rates on the upslope (on the side closer to 0 percent) tax revenue will decrease. Where you are on the Curve matters.
I say he supports it because the article seems to be about increasing tax revenues. If that is not what he intended to convey, I will apologize now for drawing the wrong conclusion.
In this case, it paid to read all the way through!