Over 800 Google Workers Demand the Company Cut Ties With ICE
UNL Student Government Passes SJP-Backed Israel Divestment Resolution
AOC Mourns the Loss of ’Our Media,’ More Layoffs Across the Industry (and...
The Left Just Doesn't Understand Why WaPo Is Failing
16 Years and $16 Billion Later the First Railhead Goes Down for CA's...
New Musical Remakes Anne Frank As a Genderqueer Hip-Hop Star
Toledo Man Indicted for Threatening to Kill Vice President JD Vance During Ohio...
Fort Lauderdale Financial Advisor Sentenced to 20 Years for $94M International Ponzi Schem...
FCC Is Reportedly Investigating The View
Illegal Immigrant Allegedly Used Stolen Identity to Vote and Collect $400K in Federal...
$26 Billion Gone: Stellantis Joins Automakers Retreating From EVs
House Oversight Chair: Clintons Don’t Get Special Treatment in Epstein Probe
Utah Man Sentenced for Stealing Funds Meant to Aid Ukrainian First Responders
Ex-Bank Employee Pleads Guilty to Laundering $8M for Overseas Criminal Organization
State Department Orders Evacuation of US Citizens in Iran As Possibility of Military...
Tipsheet

The Return Of The Laffer Debate

Much has been made of the so-called Laffer Curve, which theoretically determines the amount government can actually earn from tax revenues as the result of raising taxes. After a certain point, government earns less from raising taxes, because it inspires more income-earning people to pursue tax shelters, tricky accounting methods, or decrease production.
Advertisement


Most of the debate centers around where exactly the point lies where the government earns fewer dollars as the result of raising tax rates. Most Republicans argue that the point at which government stops making money from raising tax rates is at a lower rate of taxation. Most Democrats, and a number of other economists, argue that the point at which government stops making money from raising tax rates is at a higher rate of taxation. Here is a basic visual display of the Laffer curve, courtesy of the Heritage Foundation:

Photobucket

I'd argue that where exactly the point lies is a debate of the past, for the most part. What is important is Laffer's new editorial in the Wall Street Journal, where he takes up his theory again and applies it to the new Bush tax cuts that are being phased out at the end of this year:
... if people know tax rates will be higher next year than they are this year, what will those people do this year? They will shift production and income out of next year into this year to the extent possible. As a result, income this year has already been inflated above where it otherwise should be and next year, 2011, income will be lower than it otherwise should be.
Therefore, tax revenues will be less. Does that indicate impending economic collapse? No really, says Laurent Belsie in the Christian Science Monitor
Advertisement

Related:

JOBS
:

The problem with his argument is that he only tells the short-term story. Laffer relates how Americans and corporations will shift as much income as possible from 2011 to 2010. Thus, tax revenues will be lower next year than they would be otherwise.

That's all true. But America's economy is not going to crash because government revenues go up or down in a single year. The real policy question is what the long-term effect of the tax hikes will be.

No question they'll have a negative impact on growth. But that effect will be far smaller than the short-term effect...That's not insignificant. But the developed world is embarking on an austerity drive and starting to bring budgets back into line.
I'd argue that bringing budgets back in line shouldn't rely on increased taxation regardless of austerity drives, Laffer curve indicators or political tides. But that's for another post.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement