Talk:Laffer curve

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


The Laffer Curve is accepted economic theory. The Laffer curve does not automatically imply that tax rates should be slashed to generate tax revenue. Disputing the Laffer curve is anti-science. TheRationalOne 21:13, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

It is not the Laffer Curve that is really being dispute; it is the position that we are on the right side of the Laffer Curve, rather than the left. There are many who use the Laffer Curve as a one-size fits all reason why taxes should always be cut. Researcher 21:18, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
Agreed, but that doesn't negate the Laffer curve theory. Feel free to reword what I wrote, if the connotation is not appropriate, but the Laffer curve theory in itself is sound math. Two points that I think should not be in dispute:
  1. Laffer curve is mathematically sound.
  2. GOP has at times used this theory incorrectly.

TheRationalOne 21:34, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

I was the one that probably put in stuff you're objecting to. As Researcher said, I didn't mean to dispute the curve itself as much as the way it's sometimes applied. Although I can see why you interpreted those additions as anti-math, so thanks for correcting. However, I dispute the characterization of those who don't want the curve used as a catch-all excuse to lower taxes as "economic ideologues". In fact, I'd say it's the people who do that deserve that label. Your recent edits appear to defend that type of use of the curve, which is anti-science. D'ya think you can make edits that reflect a good middle ground?--Bayesyikes 21:40, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Neither this article nor the supply side economics article actually says who Mr.Laffer is or was, and both articles reference each other in their first sentence. Certainly, this article should, in its first paragraph. DogP 21:45, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Bayes, Apologies for sounding confrontational. I thought you were disputing the actual theory itself. The tone needs to be reworked, from my last revision. It's too much based on the actual theory itself and not enough of it is based upon the GOP's misuse of this theory. Furthermore, I think I come across as defending the use of this theory in advocating for current tax cuts, which I don't. (I wrote the last part before your edit) TheRationalOne 21:47, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

I have econ HW due at 12 CST, so I'll revert to the "anti-math" edit for now and work on this later! TheRationalOne 21:49, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

I agree with points one and two above. The tough part for technical economists is to determine the actual shape of the curve in various real-world economies. Sadly, politicians of many striped confound any economists' hope of ever getting decent data to work with ;) (by constantly changing the rules) humanUser talk:Human 23:24, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

As a Democrat with an MBA I can say that the laffer curve is real and there are numerous historical charts that backs it up. You would be laughed at for denying it by anyone with an MBA. Though the laffer curve is only one part and is effected by other forces such as war, debt, recession, disasters and so forth so it will never match exactly like some seem to think. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

No one is denying it exists, it is a curve fitted through some data. I don't know about economics, but from a statistics point of view there are always some legitimate questions. Have you presumed too much about the data's shape when fitting the curve? Are you extrapolating outside the range of the data and is such an extrapolation valid? Is there causation or merely correlation? - π Silverbrain.png 12:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Chris Worfolk?[edit]

Some dude doesn't like it. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 12:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

First as a tragedy...[edit]

  1. Steal money from poor people
  2. Give money to rich people
  3. ?????????
  4. Receive Presidential Medal of Freedom

RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

You left out:
5. Profit!
Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Conflating two different things[edit]

As it has been already pointed out by TheRationalOne more than 10 years ago (!), the Laffer curve does not automatically imply that tax rates should be slashed to generate tax revenue. It seems to me that this article is conflating two different things:

1) The Laffer curve as a theory relating rates of taxation and the resulting government revenues;
2) The use of Laffer curve to argument in favor of reduction of taxation.

Although some aspects of (1) are certainly disputable (the exact form of the curve), others are plausible (the behavior of the curve in a neighborhood of 0% and 100% and its unimodality). Tokyo (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm disappointed[edit]

All this mention of "Laffer", "Laffer", "Laffer" and not one joke about or reference to Leisure Suit Larry. For shame! (note: I'm just taking the piss) -

Subsistence farming and taxes[edit]

Subsistence farming in an unincorporated area (so there is no property tax) is an example of a non-taxable job (the farmer has nothing to sell for profit so the farmer has nothing to be taxed).

This may be true if we assume that what the government is taxing is currency, but historically speaking governments tended to tax farmers directly via a portion of the harvest. Carthage (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)