44
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 2:
Line 2: + +
→Is it based on real data?
I've always thought the Laffer curve looked ridiculously smooth and schematic, like the sort of things a marketing person might draw on a chalkboard. Is it in fact a real curve based on real data? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:52, 2 March 2007 (EST)
I've always thought the Laffer curve looked ridiculously smooth and schematic, like the sort of things a marketing person might draw on a chalkboard. Is it in fact a real curve based on real data? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:52, 2 March 2007 (EST)
Not really. The Laffer Curve is more a theoretical concept than a mathematical equation. The general idea that "There is a point where raising taxes will lower revenues" is pretty much universally accepted. What that point is, though, is unknown. Data seems to suggest the optimal rate could be as high as 80% (When Reagan talked about how his actor buddies worked less because of taxes, the high-end rate was 90%) --[[User:Momoka|Momoka]] 12:29, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
Not really. The Laffer Curve is more a theoretical concept than a mathematical equation. The general idea that "There is a point where raising taxes will lower revenues" is pretty much universally accepted. What that point is, though, is unknown. Data seems to suggest the optimal rate could be as high as 80% (When Reagan talked about how his actor buddies worked less because of taxes, the high-end rate was 90%) --[[User:Momoka|Momoka]] 12:29, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
There is also a problem because tax cuts are not done in isolation. Both during the Regan era and the Bush era tax cuts deficit spending (i.e. borrowing money) was in place. Therefore it is unclear if the deficit spending (akin to Keynesian demand lead model) or the tax cuts resulted in higher tax revenues. Until we have a period where the tax rate is cut without deficit spending will we able end the debate of the merits of the Laffer curve--[[Nik77uk]] 12:51, 14 December 2007 (GMT)