Difference between revisions of "Talk:Laffer curve"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Is it based on real data?== | ==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) | |
Revision as of 16:29, April 13, 2007
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? 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%) --Momoka 12:29, 13 April 2007 (EDT)