- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The Laffer Curve turns 40: the legacy of a controversial idea
Posted on 12/28/14 at 9:13 am
Posted on 12/28/14 at 9:13 am
Wash"Com"Post
quote:
It was 40 years ago this month that two of President Gerald Ford’s top White House advisers, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, gathered for a steak dinner at the Two Continents restaurant in Washington with Wall Street Journal editorial writer Jude Wanniski and Arthur Laffer, former chief economist at the Office of Management and Budget. The United States was in the grip of a gut-wrenching recession, and Laffer lectured to his dinner companions that the federal government’s 70 percent marginal tax rates were an economic toll booth slowing growth to a crawl.
To punctuate his point, he grabbed a pen and a cloth cocktail napkin and drew a chart showing that when tax rates get too high, they penalize work and investment and can actually lead to revenue losses for the government. Four years later, that napkin became immortalized as “the Laffer Curve” in an article Wanniski wrote for the Public Interest magazine. (Wanniski would later grouse only half-jokingly that he should have called it the Wanniski Curve.)
This was the first real post-World War II intellectual challenge to the reigning orthodoxy of Keynesian economics, which preached that when the economy is growing too slowly, the government should stimulate demand for products with surges in spending. The Laffer model countered that the primary problem is rarely demand — after all, poor nations have plenty of demand — but rather the impediments, in the form of heavy taxes and regulatory burdens, to producing goods and services.
In the four decades since, the Laffer Curve and its supply-side message have taken something of a beating. They’ve been ridiculed as “trickle down” and “voodoo economics” (a phrase coined in 1980 by George H.W. Bush), and disparaged in mainstream economics texts as theories of “charlatans and cranks.” Last year, even Pope Francis criticized supply-side theories, writing that they have “never been confirmed by the facts” and rely on “a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.” And this year, French economist Thomas Piketty penned a best-selling back-to-the-future book arguing for a return to the good old days of 70 percent tax rates on the rich.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 9:23 am to SuperSaint
It has proved correct countless times.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 9:24 am to SuperSaint
If it were wrong, why don't democrats jump the tax rate to 80%?
Posted on 12/28/14 at 9:28 am to CollegeFBRules
Considering that almost half don't pay income taxes, don't think it can't happen.
Dumbest thing the GOP ever did was removing people from the tax rolls. It's a great talking point, but if they don't have "skin in the game," they won't give a good shite about what tax rates are.
Dumbest thing the GOP ever did was removing people from the tax rolls. It's a great talking point, but if they don't have "skin in the game," they won't give a good shite about what tax rates are.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 9:33 am to SuperSaint
I think he was wrong about 100% tax rate always = to 0% collections.
If the state is willing to kill people and take their stuff, you can still achieve collections at 100%, but you can do it only 1 time.
If the state is willing to kill people and take their stuff, you can still achieve collections at 100%, but you can do it only 1 time.
This post was edited on 12/28/14 at 10:58 am
Posted on 12/28/14 at 10:28 am to SuperSaint
quote:Wait, what? The Laffer curve is a fundamentally Keynesian concept; Laffer himself said as much. You're still seeking to stimulate the economy by running a deficit and then growing your way out of it, it's just a more con-friendly way of creating it.
This was the first real post-World War II intellectual challenge to the reigning orthodoxy of Keynesian economics,
Posted on 12/28/14 at 10:30 am to udtiger
quote:
turns 40: the legacy of a controversial ideaIt has proved correct countless times.
And incorrect an equal amount of times
Posted on 12/28/14 at 10:54 am to udtiger
quote:
Dumbest thing the GOP ever did was removing people from the tax rolls. It's a great talking point, but if they don't have "skin in the game," they won't give a good shite about what tax rates are.
Exactly
Posted on 12/28/14 at 10:57 am to SuperSaint
Can we do the Bell Curve next?
Posted on 12/28/14 at 11:37 am to TrueTiger
quote:
I think he was wrong about 100% tax rate always = to 0% collections.
No.
If you tax at 100% there is no incentive to work anymore so production stops therefore collections fall to 0%.
Think about it....
If the gov't told you today that starting Jan 1 they would begin taxing at a 100% rate....would you still go to work and work for free?
Posted on 12/28/14 at 11:43 am to theenemy
quote:
If the gov't told you today that starting Jan 1 they would begin taxing at a 100% rate....would you still go to work and work for free?
Exactly.
The Laffer Curve hasn't been disproven. We just don't know where the inflection point is, and one reason is that the tax code has tens of thousands of pages of loopholes and dodges.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 12:06 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
If the state is willing to kill people and take their stuff, you can still achieve collections at 100%, but you can do it only 1 time.
Once the gov't kills everyone and seizes 100% of their property then what is the collection rate for the future.....0%
This post was edited on 12/28/14 at 12:07 pm
Posted on 12/28/14 at 12:09 pm to theenemy
quote:
Once the gov't kills everyone and seizes 100% of their property then what is the collection rate for the future.....0%
yes, I agree
That's why I said you can only do it one time (every couple of generations or so)
Posted on 12/28/14 at 1:01 pm to Iosh
quote:
The Laffer curve is a fundamentally Keynesian concept; Laffer himself said as much. You're still seeking to stimulate the economy by running a deficit and then growing your way out of it, it's just a more con-friendly way of creating it.
No. Keynes stimulates the economy through increased govt intervention. Laffer stimulates the economy through less govt intervention (lower taxes). The current growth we're seeing from gas price drops is a good example of Laffer's ideas. The govt did not mandate lower gas prices.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 3:10 pm to udtiger
quote:This! GWB did the most damage here. Those evil "Bush tax cuts for the rich" took millions of middle class voters off the tax rolls.
Dumbest thing the GOP ever did was removing people from the tax rolls.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 3:24 pm to SuperSaint
Laffer is right and always has been.
There is a mindset among Reagan critics that his tax cuts added to the deficit. That is simply not true. Reagan's tax cuts increased revenues by billions.
Coolidge and Kennedy cuts did the same thing.
LINK
Reagan simply did not have a Congress to work with to stop spending.
The worst thing that happened domestically in the last half of the twentieth century was failing to pass a balanced budget amendment. Even Jerry Brown ran against Carter in the democratic primaries calling for it's passage. At one point early in the Reagan years it looked as if there would be enough states call for the amendment that it would pass. Thomas Tip O'Neil, democrat hero, opposed it.
We would have a much smaller government today had the amendment passed.
There is a mindset among Reagan critics that his tax cuts added to the deficit. That is simply not true. Reagan's tax cuts increased revenues by billions.
Coolidge and Kennedy cuts did the same thing.
LINK
Reagan simply did not have a Congress to work with to stop spending.
The worst thing that happened domestically in the last half of the twentieth century was failing to pass a balanced budget amendment. Even Jerry Brown ran against Carter in the democratic primaries calling for it's passage. At one point early in the Reagan years it looked as if there would be enough states call for the amendment that it would pass. Thomas Tip O'Neil, democrat hero, opposed it.
We would have a much smaller government today had the amendment passed.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 3:35 pm to I B Freeman
BTW, Laffer is 74 and still writing. He's in good health.
Posted on 12/29/14 at 10:59 am to SuperSaint
The controversy isn't over whether the Laffer curve exists. The controversy is over where the peak is and to which side of it we are on. All the OP has done is redefine the argument so he can win it.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News