Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking. Login or Take a Tour!
Yes, this is the basis of the so called "fair tax", one of those brilliant Neocon marketing terms like the "clear skies initiative" and "healthy forests" initiative. By their logic, this would discourage consumption, which would destroy the economy, not to mention that its a de facto regressive tax, not matter what kind of special breaks low income individuals are given. I've never heard an economist outside of the Arthur Laffer gang tout this policy.
JakobVirgil · 4511 days ago · link ·
I have some stuff I never got around to publishing on a formalization of the Laffer curve.
It seems that it is dependant on the rate of growth when one should reduce taxes on the wealthy. in Slow growth periods it is not helpful.
–
As I understand it the Laffer curve is an idealized fantasy in the first place, no? What is his magical t_star? Obviously the curve is much more complex than one symmetric (or even asymmetric) peak. If there is a t_star, it is a weighted average over all incomes anyway, so what's the point of talking about it as if its a thing unto itself. Proclaiming that we should all pay one tax rate so that the world conforms to your idealized version of it more faithfully is a bit egomaniacle, in my opinion.
–
JakobVirgil · 4511 days ago · link ·
in mine as well.
but if one takes the folk theory as There is a point were lowering taxes or for the rich specifically leads to an increase in revenues. One can find regions where that is true. My mathematical model which like all models should not be confused with fact suggests that the point when this Laffer balderdash becomes true is when growth is well above 10%. So maybe the chinese could benefit?