Is ProgArchives still an AnCap forum, primarily?

Bringing down top tax is not a great idea.  Although it is not a great model of taxation long term, in the medium term with the middle and lower class being squeezed, I would rather there were more slabs of taxation to discriminate between different income bands from upper middle class through to the rich.  I don't know what the slabs exactly are in USA but say in India we have one rate of tax for all income over $15000 up to infinity (with a surcharge for income exceeding $150000).  I think this does not discriminate enough between middle, upper middle and rich.  And meanwhile you could lower or do away with taxes on income below a certain level.  In the past, this would have been argued to a bad idea on the grounds that the 'rich' would use various legal loopholes to conceal taxable income anyway.  But today you have heads of conglomerates commanding huge salaries (some who make multi million dollar salaries, even in India).  That's salary and tax deducted at source, so it should be an easy way to mop up higher tax revenue without significantly denting consumption.  There is either a lack of imagination on the part of govt or a stubborn desire to protect the well heeled or a combination of both.  It's not that I want to advocate for a way to pull down the rich to get them on par with the poor or some such communist agenda.  But I fear we will permanently kill demand if we do not shift the burden of tax to those who can bear it more easily than the majority.  And even if suppose there is a good case for limited govt in the long run, in the medium term it is govt which will have to crowd in the private sector as the latter still seems to lack confidence given the bleak business environment of today.   That is, we are not going to be able to do away with taxes, so why not tax higher income levels at higher rates?

That's exactly what's happening.  The thing is as much as economics has changed, the basic tenets were laid down way back in the mercantile age and refined through the industrial age which all presume that labour will keep growing as long as capital grows. I.e. a supply side focus.  That's not what's being observed in the post industrial age. It was clear that things had changed back in the 1930s when Keynesian economics had to be applied for the first time but the demand focus approach of Keynes was discredited too much after the hyperinflation of the 70s.  The focus should have shifted back to jobs after the necessary repair work of the economies was carried out in the 80s but that never happened and instead the market-oriented pivot only grew sharper. 

No taxes on low income earners, yes.  Lower taxes on middle income, yes.  But once you get to the rich, they run out of things that money can buy and they start to save and invest.  Which is why we have the unique spectacle of a never ending bull run in the stock markets in US with an at best anemic recovery in the real economy.  All the money Ben & co pumped in through QE just zipped straight into the bourses; had monetary and fiscal policy been in lock step, it would have had a greater impact on consumption than it has.  So, getting back to the point, tax progressively higher income levels at higher tax rates so that govt still has money to spend on the infrastructure that the economy needs, without hurting consumption at the macro level.

Only if we are talking about hiking corp tax.  That's not on the table anyway.  Higher tax on personal income, esp income from return on investment, will not affect investment unless it brings down consumption significantly.  And that is not going to happen in a scenario where a huge proportion of the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a very small minority of the population.  That scenario describes the situation in not only US but many, many countries across the world today.  

Well that was the battle:

Was Keynes simply suggesting the short run processes you mention, without drastic change to the orthodox, or did he want to take a hammer to the orthodox and make serious, fundamental changes? 

I guess it may not matter too much what he felt, why try to interpret and find real intent and etc in Keynes and what he may have meant? Regardless of his beliefs, a school of thought has indeed developed and expanded based on the latter interpretation, with his work as the foundation of course. 

I have drifted towards the latter, it took me a long time. It was just too shocking to hear things like "can run full(er) employment without inflation". From all I gather, the counter to deficits in the long run is: With a stronger economy deficits naturally fall/are lessened so it pays for itself to a large extent. I know this is highly unorthodox even among liberals today.