Alright, first off I will always give credit where it is due.
data, finding an actual article by Arthur Laffer to contradict my point was sheer genius. Great find.
However I take issue with two points here. One of the fundamental arguments early on was whether tax cuts increase revenue or not. Well a little simple math with the above quote shows that in 1978 96% of the population provided tax revenues of 6.9%(5.4 + 1.5). In 2007 96% of the population provided tax revenues of 6.5%(3.3 + 3.2). So in fact the tax revenues went down by .4% of GDP. Why the article left out the 97-99 percentiles is beyond me but I suspect that data wasn't so supportive. So with an estimated GDP of 14.6 trillion a drop in tax revenue of .4% equals a dollar value $560 billion. To me that is a pretty massive drop in tax revenue.
Second, I found Laffer to be self contradicting in his article. That's no fault of any poster here, but he makes references to the Kennedy tax cuts as an example of today, yet at that time taxes were 91% at the high end. That is very different from the 35% we have today. In fact in every example where he shows raising taxes was bad the baseline number was much higher than 35%. His own named curve directly contradicts that those are valid comparisons. Though to be clear, he didn't invent the curve, just put his name on it.
So while I applaud the finding of the article, what I got out of was the tax cuts are costing us nearly half a trillion a year in revenue and Arthur Laffer is out of touch with his past self.
cale
data, finding an actual article by Arthur Laffer to contradict my point was sheer genius. Great find.
It's your buddy Laffer again. Here's a relevant passage...
"During this era of ubiquitous tax cuts, income tax receipts from the top 1% of income earners rose to 3.3% of GDP in 2007 (the latest year for which we have data) from 1.5% of GDP in 1978. Income tax receipts from the bottom 95% of income earners fell to 3.2% of GDP from 5.4% of GDP over the same time period."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703977004575393882112674598.html
However I take issue with two points here. One of the fundamental arguments early on was whether tax cuts increase revenue or not. Well a little simple math with the above quote shows that in 1978 96% of the population provided tax revenues of 6.9%(5.4 + 1.5). In 2007 96% of the population provided tax revenues of 6.5%(3.3 + 3.2). So in fact the tax revenues went down by .4% of GDP. Why the article left out the 97-99 percentiles is beyond me but I suspect that data wasn't so supportive. So with an estimated GDP of 14.6 trillion a drop in tax revenue of .4% equals a dollar value $560 billion. To me that is a pretty massive drop in tax revenue.
Second, I found Laffer to be self contradicting in his article. That's no fault of any poster here, but he makes references to the Kennedy tax cuts as an example of today, yet at that time taxes were 91% at the high end. That is very different from the 35% we have today. In fact in every example where he shows raising taxes was bad the baseline number was much higher than 35%. His own named curve directly contradicts that those are valid comparisons. Though to be clear, he didn't invent the curve, just put his name on it.
So while I applaud the finding of the article, what I got out of was the tax cuts are costing us nearly half a trillion a year in revenue and Arthur Laffer is out of touch with his past self.
cale