U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-26-2018, 08:31 PM
 
Location: Paranoid State
12,672 posts, read 9,425,981 times
Reputation: 14930

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by lchoro View Post
...They're going to try to use the current situation as supportive of Laffer's theory if receipts rise, but fail to disclose that these were deferred tax obligations that weren't being taxed.
The Laffer Curve does not need support. It is self-evident. See my first post in this thread above.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-26-2018, 11:14 PM
 
6,996 posts, read 6,632,415 times
Reputation: 5274
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty View Post
The Laffer Curve does not need support. It is self-evident. See my first post in this thread above.
It's been debunked over time. The people who defend the tax cuts often use misleading information on the basis that the Laffer curve is a legitimate theory.. As I stated, it plays too loose with facts and terminology to be taken seriously. It is junk science, in other words.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2018, 08:11 AM
 
Location: Paranoid State
12,672 posts, read 9,425,981 times
Reputation: 14930
Quote:
Originally Posted by lchoro View Post
It's been debunked over time.
That is factually inaccurate.

Arthur famously drew the the now-famous curve on a napkin at a Diner to explain a very simple concept that is ineluctably self-evident:
  • At an income tax rate of zero, no tax dollars are collected. No one who passed Econ 101 disagrees with this.
  • At an income tax rate of 100% (or higher), no one has an incentive to work, and thus no tax dollars are collected. No one who passed Econ 101 disagrees with this.
  • At every income tax rate greater than zero but less than 100%, some tax revenue is collected. No one who passed Econ 101 disagrees with this.
  • THEREFORE, as surely as night follows day, there exists at least one tax rate (possibly more than one) for which the total tax dollars collected will greatest. Anyone who passed geometry and calculus and econ 101 agrees.
That's it.

None of the above has been debunked. Not a single thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2018, 09:46 AM
 
820 posts, read 274,876 times
Reputation: 2611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewjdeg View Post
...or is at least misunderstood.
....
Basically, any ******* off the street can see that using Laffer to justify any new tax cuts is hilariously invalid. I can see how Kennedy lowering income tax rates from 90% would increase revenue. I can't see how Trump lowering corporate tax rates generates any increase in revenue. In sum, the theory is not inherently wrong, it's just exploited to encourage poor fiscal policy.
Poor fiscal policy, seriously?

Laffer-shmaffer... The federal budget has run a deficit for 46 out of the last FIFTY YEARS!

Isn't it obvious that expenditures have long ago been decoupled from tax receipts?

And I'm supposed to start worrying now?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2018, 12:28 PM
 
8,279 posts, read 3,452,461 times
Reputation: 1584
Quote:
Originally Posted by PamelaIamela View Post
Poor fiscal policy, seriously?

Laffer-shmaffer... The federal budget has run a deficit for 46 out of the last FIFTY YEARS!

Isn't it obvious that expenditures have long ago been decoupled from tax receipts?

And I'm supposed to start worrying now?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
Ah, another who understands modern money!

IMO Laffer is some common sense when applied to those that think federal taxes are necessary to run the federal gov't and its programs. It takes some uncommon sense to understand modern money.

Federal taxes are there first and foremost to control the people and business.

They are there to ensure value of the currency. We all have to work and produce X numbers of days per years simply to pay our taxes.

And they can be used to quell inflation by removing spending money from our pockets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2018, 02:26 PM
 
17,749 posts, read 15,026,257 times
Reputation: 6377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose View Post
Ah, another who understands modern money!

IMO Laffer is some common sense when applied to those that think federal taxes are necessary to run the federal gov't and its programs. It takes some uncommon sense to understand modern money.

Federal taxes are there first and foremost to control the people and business.

They are there to ensure value of the currency. We all have to work and produce X numbers of days per years simply to pay our taxes.

And they can be used to quell inflation by removing spending money from our pockets.

Excruciatingly slowly. Does that make three of us now?

Some colonial empire discovers Aztec gold and Peruvian silver , stake's a claim to it by force and then dumps it on the Eurocentric global economy and this is referred to as "sound money". What does it sound like to you?

Its basically refined rocks put back into a hole and it was never any more public than anything the dictatorial powers set their eye upon including whale blubber. After they dumped refined rocks on the market the idea was to scramble to get it.


Now da gubermnet dumps sovereign debt on the economy but maybe I think we should have followed Keynes idea and buried suit cases full of cash all around the country and let people mine it, ya know instead of giving it to bankers with a talent to misplace or steal it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2018, 08:27 PM
 
Location: Near Falls Lake
2,299 posts, read 1,676,833 times
Reputation: 2143
Quote:
Originally Posted by lchoro View Post
It's been debunked over time. The people who defend the tax cuts often use misleading information on the basis that the Laffer curve is a legitimate theory.. As I stated, it plays too loose with facts and terminology to be taken seriously. It is junk science, in other words.
It is absolutely a "legitimate" theory. While there are some problems with the curve, I've never heard an economist declare it as "debunked," including my esteemed professors. If you have concerns with it perhaps you can share!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2018, 08:45 AM
 
12,404 posts, read 9,195,957 times
Reputation: 8863
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty View Post
That is factually inaccurate.

Arthur famously drew the the now-famous curve on a napkin at a Diner to explain a very simple concept that is ineluctably self-evident:
  • At an income tax rate of zero, no tax dollars are collected. No one who passed Econ 101 disagrees with this.
  • At an income tax rate of 100% (or higher), no one has an incentive to work, and thus no tax dollars are collected. No one who passed Econ 101 disagrees with this.
  • At every income tax rate greater than zero but less than 100%, some tax revenue is collected. No one who passed Econ 101 disagrees with this.
  • THEREFORE, as surely as night follows day, there exists at least one tax rate (possibly more than one) for which the total tax dollars collected will greatest. Anyone who passed geometry and calculus and econ 101 agrees.
That's it.

None of the above has been debunked. Not a single thing.
It is far from obvious that no one has an incentive to work at a tax rate of 100%. There exist tribal societies even today that largely lack any form of quid-pro-quo compensation for labor. Yet people still hunt, harvest, cook, etc. in said societies. That said, government revenue in its own currency would indeed be zero since any quid-pro-quo exchange of labor for goods would take the form of bartering. So the Laffer Curve still stands (but for a slightly different reason).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2018, 12:47 PM
 
6,996 posts, read 6,632,415 times
Reputation: 5274
Quote:
Originally Posted by carcrazy67 View Post
It is absolutely a "legitimate" theory. While there are some problems with the curve, I've never heard an economist declare it as "debunked," including my esteemed professors. If you have concerns with it perhaps you can share!
The main problem with the "theory" is that the change in the rate of growth in nominal gdp from a lower tax rate is not going to yield enough added tax receipts to come close to offsetting the drop in the marginal corporate income tax rate from 35 to 21. Nominal gdp is not going to change anywhere close to the rate of reduction in the tax rate. It is a simple math problem.

Corporate income tax receipts are down 33.8% from a year ago. As I stated earlier, any increase in tax receipts due to the tax will come from deferred taxes from 2003-2017 that should've been taxed at the same rate as other income, but received a special exemption from a law snuck into an omnibus 2003 economic recovery bill. You have to back those out from the current tax receipts or add to 2017 the relevant tax liabilities to draw an accurate comparison which will likely look worse than the 33.8% figure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2018, 04:02 PM
 
857 posts, read 370,660 times
Reputation: 542
Reality, it seems it's always on the left side of the curve: lower tax, lower revenue; higher tax, higher revenue. When tax rate gets really high, very few would file tax return but everyone keep on working to stay alive. It never gets to the point that no economic activities fearing being robbed 100% by the IRS.

Professor Laffer was naive and wrong. There is straight line curve for the Rich, and there is a tiny slope curve for the Poor. The Rich: pay taxes no matter what. The Poor: only pay up to 4%, then tax revenue on them became zero.

Last edited by 6oo9; 08-28-2018 at 04:14 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top