Yes, we can.

[Morrigoon]

I think 2001-2 could be explained by the bursting of the dot-com bubble and resultant hesitancy to participate in the stock market. Or by the losses that occurred (no gains, no tax). Otherwise, I see a pretty solid inverse relationship there.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

I think 2001-2 could be explained by the bursting of the dot-com bubble and resultant hesitancy to participate in the stock market.

Or how about the fact that, because the tax was reduced, people began selling off investments to take advantage of the lower taxes in 98/99, leaving them with far fewer investments to sell off in 01/02. That's a phenomenon that's been pretty consistent with these kinds of tax cuts, people cash out immediately, temporarily bumping revenue, but really all it does is shift revenue ahead a year or two, leveling out in the following years.

I've posted several stats and links before that show that there is zero evidence for any direct causal relationship between tax decrease and increased tax revenue. There are way too many factors, and way too much variation on the results to even remotely link the two.