My problem with this article is that he basically asks us to assume what he wants to demonstrate: "Anyone who believes that repealing the corporate income tax,

My problem with this article is that he basically asks us to assume what he wants to demonstrate: "Anyone who believes that repealing the corporate income tax, the capital gains tax, and the death/gift tax would not increase economic growth by at least 0.12 percentage points needs to consult a psychiatrist, not an economist." Edit: The more I think about it, this analysis is silly. Sure, a sustained increase in GDP growth rate will dominate a decreased tax rate in the long term. Unfortunately, what happens during the "me and/or my kids are still alive" term matters. For example in his "you're insane if you don't believe it" scenario where a 3% decrease in tax rate leads to a .12% sustained increase in economic growth, the government would take in less revenue for the first 150 years. In his "what I'd like to believe" scenario with the 3% cut and a .26% sustained growth increase, it would only take like 70 years to break even. Nice try.