State Budgets: Day of Reckoning

[Hobie]

SK: Thanks for pointing out that revenues contain more variables than simply a tax rate(s). If spending were fixed and we don’t complicate the issue by factoring in inflation, population growth, business cycle, environmental costs, etc. the premise holds.

If someone or company keeps more of the money they make ie. smaller tax liability, they will spend it– creating a taxable event!

It is really human nature and Laffer did a great job illustrating it. If the politicians can keep their hands off the checkbook under a lower tax rate, revenues will increase.

[enron_by_the_sea]

Let’s move forward.

Everyone agrees if taxes were 100%, reducing taxes will bring in more revenue and if taxes were 0%, increasing taxes will more revenue.

We have none of the 2 cases. Clearly there is an optimal level. What is that? 10%? 20%? 50%? 75%?

[enron_by_the_sea]

Let’s move forward.

Everyone agrees if taxes were 100%, reducing taxes will bring in more revenue and if taxes were 0%, increasing taxes will more revenue.

We have none of the 2 cases. Clearly there is an optimal level. What is that? 10%? 20%? 50%? 75%?

[enron_by_the_sea]

Let’s move forward.

Everyone agrees if taxes were 100%, reducing taxes will bring in more revenue and if taxes were 0%, increasing taxes will more revenue.

We have none of the 2 cases. Clearly there is an optimal level. What is that? 10%? 20%? 50%? 75%?

[enron_by_the_sea]

Let’s move forward.

Everyone agrees if taxes were 100%, reducing taxes will bring in more revenue and if taxes were 0%, increasing taxes will more revenue.

We have none of the 2 cases. Clearly there is an optimal level. What is that? 10%? 20%? 50%? 75%?

[enron_by_the_sea]

Let’s move forward.

Everyone agrees if taxes were 100%, reducing taxes will bring in more revenue and if taxes were 0%, increasing taxes will more revenue.

We have none of the 2 cases. Clearly there is an optimal level. What is that? 10%? 20%? 50%? 75%?

[Anonymous]

Yup, basically what we are discussing is the Laffer curve.

So what side of the slope are we on now? Nobody knows for sure.

Some will never accept that we may actually be on the side of the Laffer curve where increasing taxes will increase revenue (and reduce the debt, which will help the economy.)

A few of the arguments seem to suggest that part of the curve doesn’t even exist, which is mathematically impossible.

But these days, the notion that a solution comply with the laws of arithmetic is easily dismissed as liberal nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Yup, basically what we are discussing is the Laffer curve.

So what side of the slope are we on now? Nobody knows for sure.

Some will never accept that we may actually be on the side of the Laffer curve where increasing taxes will increase revenue (and reduce the debt, which will help the economy.)

A few of the arguments seem to suggest that part of the curve doesn’t even exist, which is mathematically impossible.

But these days, the notion that a solution comply with the laws of arithmetic is easily dismissed as liberal nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Yup, basically what we are discussing is the Laffer curve.

So what side of the slope are we on now? Nobody knows for sure.

Some will never accept that we may actually be on the side of the Laffer curve where increasing taxes will increase revenue (and reduce the debt, which will help the economy.)

A few of the arguments seem to suggest that part of the curve doesn’t even exist, which is mathematically impossible.

But these days, the notion that a solution comply with the laws of arithmetic is easily dismissed as liberal nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Yup, basically what we are discussing is the Laffer curve.

So what side of the slope are we on now? Nobody knows for sure.

Some will never accept that we may actually be on the side of the Laffer curve where increasing taxes will increase revenue (and reduce the debt, which will help the economy.)

A few of the arguments seem to suggest that part of the curve doesn’t even exist, which is mathematically impossible.

But these days, the notion that a solution comply with the laws of arithmetic is easily dismissed as liberal nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Yup, basically what we are discussing is the Laffer curve.

So what side of the slope are we on now? Nobody knows for sure.

Some will never accept that we may actually be on the side of the Laffer curve where increasing taxes will increase revenue (and reduce the debt, which will help the economy.)

A few of the arguments seem to suggest that part of the curve doesn’t even exist, which is mathematically impossible.

But these days, the notion that a solution comply with the laws of arithmetic is easily dismissed as liberal nonsense.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]
It is really human nature and Laffer did a great job illustrating it. If the politicians can keep their hands off the checkbook under a lower tax rate, revenues will increase.[/quote]

Laffer did do great job of illustrating it. But what he didn’t do, nor did any of the tax policies based on his theory, is prove that his theory has any validity. Pretty pictures don’t validate a theory. His theories have never been supported by any empirical evidence. There is no evidence that the economy reacts as he theorized. It is no more than a failed theory. Glad you like the pretty pictures though. Kinda like air-brushing a photograph of Ernest Borgnine to look like Cindy Crawford. Ernie still isn’t a pretty woman.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]
It is really human nature and Laffer did a great job illustrating it. If the politicians can keep their hands off the checkbook under a lower tax rate, revenues will increase.[/quote]

Laffer did do great job of illustrating it. But what he didn’t do, nor did any of the tax policies based on his theory, is prove that his theory has any validity. Pretty pictures don’t validate a theory. His theories have never been supported by any empirical evidence. There is no evidence that the economy reacts as he theorized. It is no more than a failed theory. Glad you like the pretty pictures though. Kinda like air-brushing a photograph of Ernest Borgnine to look like Cindy Crawford. Ernie still isn’t a pretty woman.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]
It is really human nature and Laffer did a great job illustrating it. If the politicians can keep their hands off the checkbook under a lower tax rate, revenues will increase.[/quote]

Laffer did do great job of illustrating it. But what he didn’t do, nor did any of the tax policies based on his theory, is prove that his theory has any validity. Pretty pictures don’t validate a theory. His theories have never been supported by any empirical evidence. There is no evidence that the economy reacts as he theorized. It is no more than a failed theory. Glad you like the pretty pictures though. Kinda like air-brushing a photograph of Ernest Borgnine to look like Cindy Crawford. Ernie still isn’t a pretty woman.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]
It is really human nature and Laffer did a great job illustrating it. If the politicians can keep their hands off the checkbook under a lower tax rate, revenues will increase.[/quote]

Laffer did do great job of illustrating it. But what he didn’t do, nor did any of the tax policies based on his theory, is prove that his theory has any validity. Pretty pictures don’t validate a theory. His theories have never been supported by any empirical evidence. There is no evidence that the economy reacts as he theorized. It is no more than a failed theory. Glad you like the pretty pictures though. Kinda like air-brushing a photograph of Ernest Borgnine to look like Cindy Crawford. Ernie still isn’t a pretty woman.

[Author]

Posts