Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (685725)	6/15/2005 5:29:26 PM
From: willcousa	Respond to of 769670

The same point recently was made for low interest rates. When the Fed let them go very low we learned that the theoretical minimum was much higher than the real minimum.

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (685725)	6/16/2005 11:58:52 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769670

"Since the probability of doing a double blind study is nil, we have to use the best available evidence." Yep. The problem that's most evident though (among several), is that of confounding factors.... "Evidence suggests that the Laffer Curve exists and is relevant." In my earlier post I began by agreeing the 'Laffer Principle' was commonsense... and I've often posted my views that lower levels of taxation (equaling, not coincidentially, a lower government sector drag on the economy) are highly desirable. "I agree that society is best served by not maximizing taxation." (I think you may be forgetting something here. The Laffer Principle shows us that there is supposed to be an optimal point at which long-term tax revenue generation is maximized AND long-term economic growth is 'high'. Revenue being correlated to growth. Too high a short-term grab for tax revenue DEPRESSES long-term growth and thus REDUCES long-term tax revenue realization!) "We also agree that society is best served by being below maximized tax receipt levels." Yes... on the left slope of the curve. "Elected and unelected government officials seem unconcerned with our opinions." Naturally.... "If we do not test the lower end of the range, we never will determine the shape of the curve." No. We should do what is best for the nation, it's people, and the economy, regardless. (We have no need to do anything to tax structure for just 'testing purposes'. The world is ALREADY full of examples of differing tax systems... more then enough evidence if the mathematicians want to work on sharpening, proving, and extending the 'Laffer Principle'... but my contention is that --- even if there remains great unknowns in economics... there are, and there will always be unknowns --- we still have ample evidence available to us to show that LOWER, SIMPLER, FAIRER and LESS COMPLICATED tax structures are highly desirable.) If we needed any additional evidence before acting (and we don't) the evidence provided by the Flat Tax systems that are rolling out all over the world now (even in one US State) should provide us with all that even the skeptics require.