The Laffer curve makes a lot of sense...having said that, our tax rate is no where near the peak and we're well to the left of it.

Pretty sure net revenue in taxes have gone up every year with the exception of economic collapses. It's an incredibly bad metric for what you guys are discussing. Tax revenue as a percentage of that year's GDP is what you want.

That's what were talking about...

Carry on then. I haven't read through this thread, just the last page and thought I'd point out the folly of net tax revenue.

tax rates have an effect on GDP.

if your goal or criteria is to find whether a tax rate would increase or decrease tax revenue the percent of GDP is irrelevant, and using it as the metric punishes pro-growth rates.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Oct 20 2017 10:54pm

The ONLY reason the Laffer Curve makes sense...is the same reason you folks are still arguing about this. If ya complicate things enough, then everyone gets lost in the details, and are easy to scam.


Taxation is not hard. The govt. needs x amount or dollars to function.
There are z amount of dollars being made in the US.

x/z = the tax rate. Anything else is BS.

Flat tax rate, no deductions, no illegal workers. Pretty simple.


Anything else is just an excuse to scam people.



/e The Laffer Curve only works when the system is already broken. W/o a broken system, you won't need the Laffer Curve, nor will it work.

This post was edited by Ghot on Oct 20 2017 11:14pm

It dropped after his 1981 and 1986 tax cuts and then rose when he increased taxes in 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1987.

Policy effects arent instantaneous. The economy can take years to adjust and can only be judged in retrospect not in the moment.

Santaras graph shows the big picture