Just a reminder that since there's actual power at stake here (votes) it takes extra work to write a quality comment on this kind of article. The difficulty is

Just a reminder that since there's actual power at stake here (votes) it takes extra work to write a quality comment on this kind of article. The difficulty is equivalent to trying to have a discussion where some unknown but real amount of money will go to the political party whose policies are closest to those advocated in the top rated comments. This makes it genuinely hard to think clearly on this kind of topic. Because of this it's extra important to be non-partisan, which is hard. Try it though, it's a fun exercise! My comments: I strongly agree with one of the conclusions of the article, that we should be "humble about taxes as a tool for growing the economy." However, I'm suspicious about their reasoning. I'm not a statistician, but doesn't a sample size of one seem a little . . . low to anyone else? It seems fairly likely to me that if you examined more situations, you would find that taxes are generally not a tool for growing the economy, are sometimes beneficial, and are sometimes strongly detrimental. For instance, say you're running a city-state in East Asia. Given that you're competing against Hong Kong and Singapore, I'd guess that low taxes would be essential to economic growth. On the other hand, say you find yourself in charge of Somalia now, or Poland in 1938. I don't know about you, but personally I'd really be digging the infrastructure/tanks respectively. This makes me pessimistic that accurate conclusions can be drawn from a study like this. For instance, say you're rich in 1960s America but you don't like the high taxes. Where else would you go? Now there are lots more options.