> Take the statement "Lowering income taxes causes people to work more and in the end generates more revenue for the state". That theory has been put to test in

> Take the statement "Lowering income taxes causes people to work more and in the end generates more revenue for the state". That theory has been put to test in many countries (like in the US during Reagan's presidency) but they still can't agree on if it is true or not. So how can economy be a science when empirical evidence doesn't cause facts to accumulate? This is not the best example. When a panel of economists was asked whether "a cut in federal income tax rates in the US right now would raise taxable income enough so that the annual total tax revenue would be higher within five years than without the tax cut," none of them answered in the affirmative. 8% said they were "uncertain," and 71% either "disagreed" or "strongly disagreed." (5% answered "no opinion" and the rest didn't answer at all.) See: http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/laffer-curve http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/laffer-curve If you don't take economists seriously, you might not notice when they agree on things.