Replies

I have seen numerous people sneer at the Laffer Curve. I have never heard one of them attempt to demonstrate why it is not true. Of course, one can claim that we are presently on the left side of the curve. If so, cutting rates will indeed result in a decrease in revenue. I’ve also never seen any logical explanation of how to determine where we are on the curve.

The problem is, it's not a static curve.

See, let's say that in theory, present revenues could be maximized with a 30% Tax. Well, that's true enough for today; but what if a 25% Tax would result in higher GDP growth over time (ceteris paribus, it would), thus resulting in a larger GDP and a larger total haul of tax revenues over ten years time? But then you could make the same argument for a 20% tax -- even greater GDP growth than with a 25% Tax, thus resulting in an even larger haul of tax revenues over ten years time?

Since one can theoretically forecast higher GDP future growth for each percentage point of lower taxation, there's virtually no limit to just "how low you can go" with long-term forecasts of higher revenues from lower tax rates -- at least until you get down to such a low level of tax rates that the basic functions of Government break down, creating disorder in the economy.

(i.e., "Basic functions" such as Police and Courts to provide law and order in the Marketplace, and National Defense to protect the Marketplace. But even there, a significant portion of the government's police and court functions could be provided by private security and arbitration, and a well-armed civilian population could be a substantial supplement to any Government-funded National Defense. So even at the most basic level, government funding requirements might be very low indeed).

Since there's no way (IMHO) to "scientifically" forecast just exactly what Tax Rate would be the "optimal" revenue-generating Laffer Tax over ten years, or twenty years, or a hundred years -- I say we throw pragmatic econometric forecasting out the window, and just go back to the Bible.

Specifically, 1 Samuel 8:17 -- ANY Government Taxation over and above the 10% which God requires for His Tithe, is Biblically defined as Tyranny. (Which government should be cut back down to size; or in extreme circumstances, "it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it".)

Look, it even makes a handy tagline:

"Taxation over Ten is Tyranny!"

what if a 25% Tax would result in higher GDP growth over time (ceteris paribus, it would), thus resulting in a larger GDP and a larger total haul of tax revenues over ten years time? But then you could make the same argument for a 20% tax -- even greater GDP growth than with a 25% Tax, thus resulting in an even larger haul of tax revenues over ten years time?

I think you're falling into a fallacy here. A 5% decrease in tax rates will indeed create more economic activity, but not necessarily enough more to create more revenue.

At some point diminishing returns kicks in. I think that's what the LC is trying to show. There is an optimum tax rate. For revenue generation, not necessarily for economic activity. In fact, I think it is fair to assume the optimum rate for revenue is always higher than the optimum rate for economic growth.