Paul Krugman, the Keynesian Nobel winning economist and New York Times columnist, predicted the market would “never” recover if Donald Trump was elected President of the United States.
I’ve been writing about the Laffer Curve for decades, making the simple point that there’s not a linear relationship between tax rates and tax revenue.
To help people understand, I ask them to imagine that they owned a restaurant and decided to double prices. Would they expect twice as much revenue?
Of course not, because people respond. Customers would go to other restaurants, or decide to eat at home. Depending on how customers reacted, the restaurant might even wind up with less revenue.
Well, that’s how the Laffer Curve works. When tax rates change, that alters incentives to engage in productive behavior (i.e., how much income they earn). In other words, to figure out tax revenue, you have to look at taxable income in addition to tax rates.
For some odd reason, this is a controversial issue.
My wayward buddy Bruce Bartlett posted a video on Facebook from Samantha Bee’s Full Frontal show. The goal was to mock the Laffer Curve, and here’s the part of the video featuring economists dismissing the concept as a “joke.”
Wow, that’s pretty damning. Economists from Stanford, Harvard, MIT, and the University of Chicago are on the other side of the issue.
Should I give up and retract all my writings and analysis?
Fortunately, that won’t be necessary since I have an unexpected ally. As shown in this excerpt from the video, Paul Krugman agrees with me about the Laffer Curve.
And Krugman’s not alone. Many other left-leaning economists also admit there is a Laffer Curve.
To be sure, as Krugman noted, there is considerable disagreement about the revenue-maximizing tax rate. Folks on the left often say tax rates could be 70 percent while folks on the right think the revenue-maximizing rate is much lower.
I have two thoughts about this debate.
First, if the revenue-maximizing rate is 70 percent, then why did the IRS collect so much additional revenue from upper-income taxpayers when Ronald Reagan lowered the top rate from 70 percent to 28 percent?
Second, I don’t want to maximize revenue for government. That’s why I always make sure my depictions of the Laffer Curve show both the revenue-maximizing point and the growth-maximizing point. At the risk of stating the obvious, I prefer the growth-maximizing point.
But I wouldn’t care if the revenue-maximizing rate was actually 50 percent. Politicians should only collect the relatively small amount of revenue that is needed to finance the growth-maximizing level of government spending.
P.S. As tax rates get closer and closer to the revenue-maximizing point, that means an increasing amount of economic damage per dollar collected.
P.P.S. Paul Krugman is also right that value-added taxes are not good for exports.
Addendum: This post was updated on August 12 to add the clip of selected economists mocking the Laffer Curve.
The most damning journalistic sin committed by the media during the era of Russia collusion…
The first ecological study finds mask mandates were not effective at slowing the spread of…
On "What Are the Odds?" Monday, Robert Barnes and Rich Baris note how big tech…
On "What Are the Odds?" Monday, Robert Barnes and Rich Baris discuss why America First…
Personal income fell $1,516.6 billion (7.1%) in February, roughly the consensus forecast, while consumer spending…
Research finds those previously infected by or vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 are not at risk of…
This website uses cookies.
View Comments
Unfortunately, modern "Americans" have no grasp of American freedom. Talk of tax rates, revenue, the IRS, economics, etc. is antithetical and subversive of the very Constitution itself. Americans are free to engage in free enterprise and government has no authority to interfere. The only constitutional regulation is that between nations and among the states to assure unconstrained free enterprise without bias or favor to any particular enterprise. Regulation of design, engineering, production and distribution is unconstitutional.
Regulation is not punitive, is differentiated from and is not the right to "...petition the government for a redress of grievances." Industries must fund associations and standards.
Charity is industry conducted in the free markets of the private sector. The Constitution does not mandate charity. All forms of redistribution of wealth are unconstitutional. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1; Congress has no authority to tax for individual welfare, merely "...general Welfare..." as in roads, water, sewer, currency and other commodities and services that ALL people use in similar amounts - elements that facilitate freedom of the individual.
All forms of social engineering - "Affirmative Action Privilege," quotas, unfair "Fair Housing" laws, discriminatory "Non-Discrimination" laws, forced busing, etc. are unconstitutional. The right to private property precludes governmental intercession and dictatorship. To wit,
James Madison defined “private property” as
"that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every
other individual."
There is no need for the IRS because there is no authority to tax for redistribution of wealth, central planning, control of the means of production (i.e. regulation) and/or social engineering.
Welfare, food stamps, Obamacare, social services, Medicaid, utility subsidies, WIC, HAMP, HARP, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Dept.'s Education/Labor/Energy/Agriculture etc., are all unconstitutional redistribution of wealth requiring taxation for "individual welfare" which Congress has no authority to impose.
People must adapt to the outcomes of freedom.
Freedom does not adapt to people...
dictatorship does.