Sure. I think supply-side economics deserves more nuance than simply thinking we need to make the tax rate arbitrarily low. The Laffer curve isn't the only thing you should look at, since where you tax can be just as important as how much you tax.

Take corporate taxes for example. If one were to advocate to get rid of corporate taxes, you might think that person unabashedly biased. What kind of person would want to give breaks to the richest people (corporations) when everyday people are the most in need of those kind of cuts, right?

But the reality is that when you tax corporations, that is one of the most economically damaging taxes you can do. How about then, rather than taxing corporations, you tax the benefactors of those corporations directly? When you tax Walmart, sure you tax the C-suite, but you also make it so that Walmart can hire less people, and invest less in the economy. Rather than taxing the corporation, what if you just taxed the C-suite directly? Tax the Walton family, or the highest earning employees directly, and you get to have your cake and it too since you get similar amounts of tax revenue without damaging the economy nearly as much.

You'll see this often in the social democracies of Scandinavia, like Sweden or Denmark. These are countries with strong welfare states, and yet, the corporate tax rates are often lower than the U.S., even if you look at the most red states. This is supply side economics at work, and an example of how supply-side economics can be easily misrepresented.

> Tax the Walton family, or the highest earning employees directly, and you get to have your cake and it too since you get similar amounts of tax revenue without damaging the economy nearly as much

They do get taxed same as everyone else, more even. What’s not taxed though is the stocks which never get materialized into cash and grow in value because of the low corporate tax rate that makes them more profitable.

> But the reality is that when you tax corporations, that is one of the most economically damaging taxes you can do

That’s a rhetorical jump you made. Corporations benefit from the government creating order and structure just like everyone else. They have a legal system they can use to settle disputes and protect themselves. They have solid roadway networks that help their employees get to work and to transport their goods. They get a military that protects their goods in transit to/from foreign lands. They get a police force that ensures that people don’t destroy their property. It’s only damaging if the value provided to all corporations is less than the tax rate is, but claiming any tax is damaging is laughable on its face. And that’s ignoring all the other kinds of non-monetary value the government grants corporations (eminent domain, water rights, suppression of various regulations, etc)

You can't do that, because the Walton family and others are really, really good at avoiding getting taxed. Even small business owners like my uncles do whatever they can to avoid any sort of taxes. I never paid VAT on sport equipments or DIY equipment, which are what they sold, but we also managed for my whole school life to avoid paying VAT on school supplies, and it's probably the same for my 22 cousins. Tax avoidance is a really good hobby for those people.