Spin Time

[briantrumpet]

You're such a bad loser Brian.

I'll let others decide that.

 

[Stevo 666]

Don't. Feed. The. Trolls.

Too right. I will never send you any food, ever.

 

[Stevo 666]

I'll let others decide that.

Your inability to reply with a counter argument is all need to know. Night night

 

[Rusty Nails]

Try telling me which bit you disagree with. See my bullet points above.

Pretty difficult to disagree or agree with such broad generalisations, especially the meaningless extremes of 0% and 100%. They are so broad and simplistic as to be irrelevant to decision-making for national tax levels.

 

[C R]

You're right.

I know.

 

[monkers]

Unfortunately for you the Laffer curve is a real thing and I can explain if you want to understand.

Otherwise why not just raise the rate to 110% to punish the evil rich and nasty big corporates and watch the cash roll in? 😉

 

[Pblakeney]

then we might as well replace parliament with accountants and AI.

If AI is of any use whatsoever then you can remove “accountants and” from that sentence.

 

[briantrumpet]

If AI is of any use whatsoever then you can remove “accountants and” from that sentence.

Yeah, but they'd add that bit of flair and excitement.

 

[icowden]

Unfortunately for you the Laffer curve is a real thing and I can explain if you want to understand.

It's not a real thing, it's a theoretical thing. An idea - and one that doesn't really work because it is too simplistic.

It was tested under the Reagan administration and cost America two trillion dollars.

Generally, among other criticisms, the Laffer curve has been scrutinised as intangible and inapplicable in the real world, i. e. in a real national economy. On the contrary, diligent application of the Laffer curve in the past has actually led to controversial outcomes. Since its proposal, there have been several real-life trials of modelling the Laffer curve and its consequent application, which have resulted in the finding that tax rates, which are actually utilised by the governing body, are to the left of the Laffer curve turning point, which would maximise tax revenue. More significantly, the result of several experiments, which tried to adjust the tax rate to the one proposed by the Laffer curve model, resulted in a significant decrease in national tax revenue - lowering the economy's tax rate led to an increase in the government budget deficit. The occurrence of this phenomenon is most famously attributed to the Reagan administration (1981–1989), during which the government deficit increased by approx. $2 trillion.[65]

 

[CXRAndy]

Still doesn't get around the top 1% earners pay the lions share of the tax revenue

 

[briantrumpet]

For Cakestoppers, it's just like one of RC's 'graphs' which 'explained everything', but was just a curve on a napkin trying to look profound.

 

[Ian H]

I always get confused between graphs and giraffes, especially the ones with a hump in the middle... or is that camels?

 

[Dorset Boy]

For Cakestoppers, it's just like one of RC's 'graphs' which 'explained everything', but was just a curve on a napkin trying to look profound.

And you seem to be regularly confusing laffer curves and trickle down economics .....

 

[briantrumpet]

And you seem to be regularly confusing laffer curves and trickle down economics .....

https://fastercapital.com/content/The-Laffer-Curve-and-Trickle-Down-Economics--Myth-or-Reality.html

 

[Dorset Boy]

https://fastercapital.com/content/The-Laffer-Curve-and-Trickle-Down-Economics--Myth-or-Reality.html

They are separate things.
The Laffer curve is to do with when people stop earning extra because the tax burden is too high.
Trickle down economics is the assumption that as your disposable income income increases, you spend more.
TDE is true to a point, particularly among lower and middle earnings, but once you earn beyond a point, you tend to just save the extra, not spend it, which is where TDE falls down.