If you ever wondered which end of the ideological spectrum was a
humorless lot...
Stephen Miller wrote:
It's not as funny when you explain it...
On Apr 21, 2005, at 9:51 PM, James Wells wrote:
That's the trouble with the empirical testing of Laffer effects. Your
selected timeframe has an inverse r
It's not as funny when you explain it...
On Apr 21, 2005, at 9:51 PM, James Wells wrote:
That's the trouble with the empirical testing of Laffer effects. Your
selected timeframe has an inverse relationship with the revenue
maximizing rate of taxation. The tax policy that maximizes revenue
over th
That's the trouble with the empirical testing of Laffer effects. Your
selected timeframe has an inverse relationship with the revenue
maximizing rate of taxation. The tax policy that maximizes revenue over
the next hour is to confiscate everything. The revenue maximizing tax
policy over the next
Speaking of Communism, is "The Black Book" worth having?
I saw several copies yesterday at a secondhand store in San Leandro,
marked about $8 if memory serves.
--
Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/
All this talk of the Laffer Curve seems to have skirted around one
fundamental issue which I think economics has still failed to address to
this very day. Namely, that time and time again, studies have shown that
once you reach a certain standard of living, "happiness" depends not so
much on absolu
In a message dated 4/21/05 5:11:04 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Taking the example of Stalin's war on the peasantry in general and the
> Ukraine in particular, we see that massive confiscations of income at
> marginal rates well in excess of 100% certainly detered ec
So it worked in the short run, and in the long run they were all dead!
On Apr 21, 2005, at 5:10 PM, Bryan Caplan wrote:
Yes, but ag collectivization in the USSR DID raise additional
government
revenue, at least in the short-run. The people starved, production
fell, but Stalin got more grain to fe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Taking the example of Stalin's war on the peasantry in general and the
Ukraine in particular, we see that massive confiscations of income at
marginal rates well in excess of 100% certainly detered economic
activity, to put it rather mildly.
Yes, but ag collectivization in t
In a message dated 4/21/05 12:26:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> And I have a sneaking suspicion that more equitable distributions of
> income lead to less social conflict and rent seeking and lead to higher
> growth.
I wonder what the Laffer Curve would have to say about the "tax" rates and
In a message dated 4/21/05 1:38:10 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>And I have a sneaking suspicion that more equitable distributions of
>income lead to less social conflict and rent seeking and lead to higher
>growth. Unlike you I can point to some theoretical and empirical
>studies that back my
In a message dated 4/21/05 1:37:25 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By one measure, there is a big difference, in per capita GDP taking into account purchasing power parity. From the OECD site, in 1999 the U.S. had a per capita GDP of $33,836. Germany, France, UK, Italy were all between $22,0
In a message dated 4/21/05 3:13:06 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, if you have labor supply and demand functions that don't meet
these boundary conditions, then it doesn't make a whole lot of sense
to talk about what happens as you approach these boundary conditions,
right? In other words, if
> >> Ls=S [w(1-t)]^b
> >
> >Doesn't this allow labor supply to be unbounded? And isn't this a
> >problem since, for example, you can't supply more than 24 hours of
> >labor per day per person?
>
> Only if the wage is unbounded too. You might find ways to increase
> your work without bound if your
> >But there is no reasonable argument (at least none that I've seen)
>that >tax increases in any range we've seen in this country don't raise
> >revenue.
>
>Disagree or not, I think my argument about long-term damage to
>entrepreneurship and the work ethic is a reasonable one.
Sorry. Mistyped. Me
>And I have a sneaking suspicion that more equitable distributions of
>income lead to less social conflict and rent seeking and lead to higher
>growth. Unlike you I can point to some theoretical and empirical
>studies that back my suspicion up (though I wouldn't bet my life on it
>being true). My
Jeff Rouse wrote:
"I'd like to add one of the "big questions" that I think about from time to time.
One arguement against welfare programs in the US is that with lower taxes and more incentinve to work and invest, over time, even people in the bottom 20% of the income distribution will eventual
I'd like to add one of the "big questions" that I think about from time to time.
One arguement against welfare programs in the US is that with lower taxes and
more incentinve to work and invest, over time, even people in the bottom 20% of
the income distribution will eventually be better off tha
And I have a sneaking suspicion that more equitable distributions of
income lead to less social conflict and rent seeking and lead to higher
growth.
I wonder what the Laffer Curve would have to say about the "tax" rates and
"equitable distributions of income" and "lesser or greater social conflict"
I think Bill accidentally sent this to me privately instead of the list.
Subject:
Re: Laffer Curve
From:
William Dickens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date:
Wed, 20 Apr 2005 16:31:33 -0400
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>I'll bite. I completely agree with Bill in the short-term. Higher
>>taxes raise revenue. But
19 matches
Mail list logo
