tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8663335761640701383.post7503176408837037641..comments2023-05-26T04:17:44.780-07:00Comments on The Deep View: Discussion on the Laffer CurveUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8663335761640701383.post-38346501405124808932011-04-27T05:38:33.432-07:002011-04-27T05:38:33.432-07:00Thanks for your praise.
After looking back at the ...Thanks for your praise.<br />After looking back at the sources I used for this article: the figures for the USA are only income tax receipts; while income and corporations tax rates fell in Ireland, it is unclear whether the tax revenue data is only for these types of tax or for indirect taxes as well - but this was the best data I could find.<br /><br />As for Fig.3, that the AEI came up with such a misleading graphic is shameful but the fact that the WSJ published it is more so.<br /><br />Your comment made me think of what the Laffer Curve for indirect taxes would look like. Clearly the maximum tax rate would be much higher than 100% (infinity in theory at least?). Revenue would fall to zero at some point as either the govt would provide all goods&services or the black market would become mainstream.Deep Vazehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10063816966784526653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8663335761640701383.post-30600080656164350462011-04-25T20:52:07.539-07:002011-04-25T20:52:07.539-07:00The best critique of the Laffer Curve I have ever ...The best critique of the Laffer Curve I have ever read. I especially like your idea that if the tax rate was 100% people might well still go to work knowing they would be getting (presumably) free housing, transport, education and, one hopes food and drink. I agree with you that each culture has its own curve. Clearly the Laffer Curve for Sweden is very different from the Laffer curve for the USA. The optimal rate will be much further to the right in Sweden, presumably. You also don't mention indirect taxation because changes in this could skew the statistics i.e. when marginal tax rates were reduced and government revenue increased was this just direct revenue? It is not clear. Finally Fig 3 is an indictment of the WSJ (now owned by Rupert Murdock) who seem to have taken it straight from the AEI, an extreme neo-classical and neo-conservative think tank without the charm and intelligence of Cato.Ric Faulknernoreply@blogger.com