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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: c.hinton who wrote (257342)	2/23/2008 1:11:26 AM
From: bentway	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

To a right wingnut, M is always not yet reached. The only pol that could actually PROVE he reached M was John Kennedy, who increased revenues after cutting the top marginal rate from 91% to 71%.

To: c.hinton who wrote (257342)	2/23/2008 1:26:34 AM
From: c.hinton	Respond to of 281500

math behind calculating the optimal tax rate on the laffer curve..... research.stlouisfed.org

To: c.hinton who wrote (257342)	2/23/2008 1:28:19 AM
From: c.hinton	Respond to of 281500

ARE WE OVER THE LAFFER HILL? from 1981 "To establish the existence of a Laffer curve in theory, we do not need to know anything about either economics or the tax system. Rolle’s Theorem will do. But it is a long way from proving the existence of a Laffer curve to arguing that existing taxes are on its downhill side. While the down side of the Laffer hill may perhaps be relevant to very narrowly-based taxes, back-of-the-envelope calculations such as those presented here make it seem highly unlikely that broad-based taxes could fall in this range. The specific model presented in the paper by Canto, Joines, and Laffer does nothing to dispel this belief unless the tax system (at the margin) chases huge amounts of capital and labor out of the market system and into the home production sector (or the underground economy)."..... research.stlouisfed.org