[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 only
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 the
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
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.
--
[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.
Mancur
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
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 I
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
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
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 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&q
to 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
http
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/
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
http
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
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
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 supply
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
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.
It sure does. A ten
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 it
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 supply (they are called
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 showing that the very standard log-linear
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
= 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 like for R(t
= 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
, 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 future revenue could
26 matches
Mail list logo
