Kurt Wickman is having trouble posting, and asked me to forward this
tot he Armchair list.
- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 11:04:11 +0200
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Laffer Curve
Robert,
Thanks for mail. For some reason the armchair-list
In a message dated 4/29/05 2:35:28 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Right. But this is all very predictable, even at a 10% tax. Demand
for yachts is highly elastic. Nobody really "needs" one -- or as I
like to tell people, if you can afford to buy a yacht, you can also
afford NOT to buy a yacht.
David Levenstam ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes:
> Indeed. And thanks also for the material on the luxury yachet (are
> there non-luxury yachets?) tax from the 1980s. It's remarkable that
> a 10% rate nearly eliminated the US industry. Imagine what would
> have happened had my failing memory been accu
In a message dated 4/29/05 2:07:12 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes:
> It's funny, during the 1970s people commonly attributed the
> excellent rates of economic grown in Taiwan and Hong Kong to the
> "Confusion work ethic" while completely ignoring the poverty of t
In a message dated 4/29/05 2:05:25 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes:
> It's funny, during the 1970s people commonly attributed the
> excellent rates of economic grown in Taiwan and Hong Kong to the
> "Confusion work ethic" while completely ignoring the poverty of t
David ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes:
> It's funny, during the 1970s people commonly attributed the
> excellent rates of economic grown in Taiwan and Hong Kong to the
> "Confusion work ethic" while completely ignoring the poverty of the
> hundreds of millions of Chinese right next door in Communist Ch
Kurt Wickman writes:
> The Laffer curve is probably the best macro approach to tax analysis around
> (though it should rightly be called "the Ibn Khaldoun-curve", but
> nevertheless). But being macro it hides more than it shows. I have tried to
> make the Swedish economict Kn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Congress imposed something like a 100% tax on luxury boats (as I recall, as
> part of the tax hike of 1990), and found that they collected zero revenue from
> the tax.
>
> So we do have empirical evidence that higher marginal tax rates can produce
> less revenue.
It was
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005, Bryan Caplan wrote:
Much as I admire Olson, this is crazy. Collectivization didn't just
costlessly move resources from agriculture to industry/military
production. There was an enormous deadweight cost in reduced production
*per farmer*. Not to mention massive destruction of
In a message dated 4/23/05 4:42:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Peter C. McCluskey wrote:
> Mancur Olson claims in his book Power and Prosperity that the
> marginal income tax rate was effectively zero. The effective taxes
> were near 100% of what a typical worker in any given position could
>
Peter C. McCluskey wrote:
Mancur Olson claims in his book Power and Prosperity that the
marginal income tax rate was effectively zero. The effective taxes
were near 100% of what a typical worker in any given position could
produce, but workers producing more than expected kept all the
unexpected we
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes:
>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.
Man
In a message dated 4/22/05 9:55:30 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
istribution. The real question, according to
> McCloskey, is not why does Germany have only 75% of US per capital
> GDP, but why
> does Bangledesh have only 5% of US per capital GDP. People in the
Since the postmodern left took over history from the New Left, the history profession could use a bit of that old document bias.
David
In a message dated 4/22/05 10:19:21 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes. It suffers a bit from the historians' "If you don't have a
document, it didn't happen" b
Yes. It suffers a bit from the historians' "If you don't have a
document, it didn't happen" bias, but it's good.
Anton Sherwood wrote:
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.
--
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>istribution. The real question, according to
> McCloskey, is not why does Germany have only 75% of US per capital
> GDP, but why
> does Bangledesh have only 5% of US per capital GDP. People in the
countries
> with the top 10 or 15 per capita incomes in the world
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
d the cities and export. At
least
that's my recollection from Conquest.
Of course, productivity growth in agriculture was very low afterwards,
fitting my long-run Laffer curve story!
--
Prof. Bryan Caplan
Department of Economics George Mason Unive
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/
llection from Conquest.
Of course, productivity growth in agriculture was very low afterwards,
fitting my long-run Laffer curve story!
Indeed! On page 174 of Harvest of Sorrow Conquest reports that while grain procurements rose from 10.8 million in 1928-9 to 22.8 million in 1931-2 (by offi
feed the cities and export. At
least
that's my recollection from Conquest.
Of course, productivity growth in agriculture was very low afterwards,
fitting my long-run Laffer curve story!
--
Prof. Bryan Caplan
Department of Economics George Mason University
s,
fitting my long-run Laffer curve story!
--
Prof. Bryan Caplan
Department of Economics George Mason University
http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://econlog.econlib.org
"[M]uch of the advice from the parenting experts is flapdoodle.
But su
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 &q
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
me, it fails to take into account the fact that the
wage rate (net of taxes) is the price of leisure, which is a normal
good. While this might not matter for small changes in the middle of
the range for most labor supply questions, it's my understanding (is
this correct?) that the theoretical b
s, I know that. (Full disclosure: I'm not a prof there, but I got
my Ph.D. there and I was already signed up for this list at that
e-mail address so it was just easier to keep using it.)
However, in this case, the boundary condition is critical. In a
sense, the Laffer curve is DEFINED by bou
> >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
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
>>t
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 o
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
>>ta
>Does the following have any bearing on the Laffer Curve discussion?
>""Hammermesh estimated that a 10-percentage point reduction in payroll
taxes would lead
>to a short-term 3 percent increase in employment and a long-term 10
percent increase in
>employment United States.
Does the following have any bearing on the Laffer Curve discussion?
This is from page 97 of the book "The Economics of Macro Issues" by Miller and Benjamin:
""Hammermesh estimated that a 10-percentage point reduction in payroll taxes would lead to a short-term 3 percent in
> There are lots of reasonable objections
to raising taxes. You can decide that you don't think that tax
revenue is put to good uses. You can believe that ethically taxation
is theft. But there is no reasonable argument (at least none that
I've seen) that tax increases in any range we've seen in t
st
order Taylor series expansion of a general demand system of unknown functional
form and thus can be viewed as a reasonable local approximation. Again, the
boundary conditions are only relevant to the question I was addressing - -
whether there are any functional forms that don't yield a La
> > I'm just wondering if it is even
> >possible for the supply and demand curves to be shaped shaped in such a
> >way that the Laffer curve does not apply to some market.
>
> Since you asked...
>
> Take an income tax and the very standard constant elasticity fo
row me a bone here. ;-)
Perfectly reasonable. However, I wasn't trying to answer the question of what
the true revenue maximizing tax rate is. Rather I was responding to the
questioner who wanted to know if there was any supply and demand system that
didn't yield a Laffer curve and I was showin
> > I'm just wondering if it is even
> >possible for the supply and demand curves to be shaped shaped in such
a
> >way that the Laffer curve does not apply to some market.
>
> Since you asked...
>
[snip]
> ... Typical estimates of b are .1 with very high est
> I'm just wondering if it is even
>possible for the supply and demand curves to be shaped shaped in such a
>way that the Laffer curve does not apply to some market.
Since you asked...
Take an income tax and the very standard constant elasticity formulations for
demand and su
> For what it's worth, I recall a Treasury study in the late 1980s that
> concluded that the tax cut of 1984 was 95% self-financing.
>
> David
Do you have a citation for that study (or a copy)?
If "95% self-financing" means what it seems to mean, that would mean
tax revenues actually declined, ri
In a message dated 4/19/05 12:43:11 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> For what it's worth, I recall a Treasury study in the late 1980s that
> concluded that the tax cut of 1984 was 95% self-financing.
>
> David
Do you have a citation for that study (or a copy)?
If "95% self-financing" means what
(last I heard, the peak was
at about 75%-80%).
I think it gets considerably more interesting when you think of how taxes and
growth can be endogenous. It is possible that even on the near side of the
Laffer curve, a tax cut could cause a large enough increase in investment that
the DPV of
y curve: Qs = a + bPs
Demand curve: Qd = c - dPd
You can derive
R = t(bc + da - bdt)/(b + d)
Still, a lot of people have said that the Laffer curve is bunk. Are
there any Laffer detractors here? If so, what must the supply and
demand curves for labor look like for R(t) to be an always increasi
peak was
at about 75%-80%).
I think it gets considerably more interesting when you think of how taxes and
growth can be endogenous. It is possible that even on the near side of the
Laffer curve, a tax cut could cause a large enough increase in investment that
the DPV of future revenue could
emand curve: Qd = c - dPd
You can derive
R = t(bc + da - bdt)/(b + d)
Still, a lot of people have said that the Laffer curve is bunk. Are
there any Laffer detractors here? If so, what must the supply and
demand curves for labor look like for R(t) to be an always increasing
(or at least n
R = revenue = tQ
Supply curve: Qs = a + bPs
Demand curve: Qd = c - dPd
You can derive
R = t(bc + da - bdt)/(b + d)
Still, a lot of people have said that the Laffer curve is bunk. Are
there any Laffer detractors here? If so, what must the supply and
demand curves for labor look l
c - dPd
You can derive
R = t(bc + da - bdt)/(b + d)
Still, a lot of people have said that the Laffer curve is bunk. Are
there any Laffer detractors here? If so, what must the supply and
demand curves for labor look like for R(t) to be an always increasing
(or at least never decreasing) function?
James
50 matches
Mail list logo
