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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (15805)	4/27/2017 9:31:01 AM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Recommended By i-node Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 365141

But it is important to keep in mind we really don't know what "optimal" means for the Laffer curve, but it certainly isn't just a matter of finding a local maximum. Yes. Partially because if you set it at a local maximum and then conditions change you could be past the maximum, but probably even more so because achieving the maximum tax income in the short run shouldn't even be a goal. I could make a moral argument that I'm sure you'd agree with, but it won't convince anyone on the other side so I'll stick to the practical. As you approach the peak in the Laffer curve, the most tax revenue that can get extracted, you give up more and more from the private sector (and more future growth, even if the effect often isn't quite as large as some of the biggest proponents of low taxes would portray it as) for each additional dollar of federal revenue. Its not a one to one thing, where the feds get an extra dollar at the expense of one dollar to the private sector. There are dead weight losses even with the simplest and most efficient and least distorting of possible tax systems, even more so with actual real world systems that make it through the political process.