Starmer's vision quest

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
bobzmyunkle

bobzmyunkle

Über Member
icowden said:
The article is utter baloney
Click to expand...
@Stevo 666, the devil's accountant. I'm guessing his mother insists on calling him Stephan and makes sure he changes his underpants every Sunday. She knows the trickle down effect is real.
 
  • Laugh
Reactions: C R
CXRAndy

CXRAndy

Legendary Member
He's loved and admired where ever he can find a seat

1000023196.jpg
 
briantrumpet

briantrumpet

Über Member
Pross said:
Democrat so self-confessed Leftie
Click to expand...

True, but I think it would be tricky to claim he's not an experienced economist.

This is a more balanced view, but it doesn't dispel the suggestion that the Laffer Curve is (at best) simplistic bollox. All it says is that 0% or 100% taxes won't work. Well, durr.

The shape of the Laffer Curve is typically depicted as a bell curve, with the peak representing the optimal tax rate. This optimal point is where tax revenue is maximized without stifling economic activity. Identifying this peak is complex and varies across different economies and contexts. Factors such as labor market conditions, capital mobility, and the overall economic environment play significant roles in determining where this optimal rate lies.

Despite its influence, the Laffer Curve has faced substantial criticism from various quarters. One major contention is the difficulty in pinpointing the optimal tax rate. Critics argue that the curve’s theoretical nature makes it challenging to apply in real-world scenarios, where economic conditions and individual behaviors are far more complex and variable. This uncertainty can lead to misguided policies that either fail to maximize revenue or inadvertently stifle economic growth.

Another point of contention is the assumption that tax cuts will always lead to increased economic activity and, consequently, higher revenue. Empirical evidence on this matter is mixed, with some studies showing that tax cuts primarily benefit higher-income individuals and corporations without significantly boosting overall economic growth. This raises questions about the equity and fairness of tax policies inspired by the Laffer Curve, particularly in societies with significant income inequality.
Click to expand...
 
CXRAndy

CXRAndy

Legendary Member
Makes some interesting points re mortgages, no identification tenants.


View: https://x.com/jomickane/status/1935532238134710631?t=LGJWK4wryj60Jvjhmmx70w&s=19
 
Pross

Pross

Active Member
briantrumpet said:
True, but I think it would be tricky to claim he's not an experienced economist.

This is a more balanced view, but it doesn't dispel the suggestion that the Laffer Curve is (at best) simplistic bollox. All it says is that 0% or 100% taxes won't work. Well, durr.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the big issue I have with proponents of the Laffer Curve is that they seem to always assume that we are currently at the peak or on the downward slope. They never seem to accept we could be on the up slope and therefore increasing tax will move things towards increased benefit.
 
briantrumpet

briantrumpet

Über Member
Pross said:
Yeah, the big issue I have with proponents of the Laffer Curve is that they seem to always assume that we are currently at the peak or on the downward slope. They never seem to accept we could be on the up slope and therefore increasing tax will move things towards increased benefit.
Click to expand...

As I mentioned in an earlier post. It's just used lazily now to try to 'prove' that all tax cuts would be beneficial and to mask the complexities of how taxes affect/interact with economies and people. It has no meaning in itself and proves nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Badenoch's (Lack Of) Vision Quest
Replies
53
the snail
Badenoch's vision quest
Replies
47
monkers
4B, or not 4B, that is the question
Replies
13
Milzy
Questioning a problem with MP’s?
Replies
6
Top Bottom