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: combjelly who wrote (16469)	4/27/2017 6:09:48 PM
From: Dracin72	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 365233

"What he did was draw a meaningless graph " He drew a bell curve. Like all bell curves they have a left extreme, a right extreme and then the significantly larger middle or sweet spot depending on context.

To: combjelly who wrote (16469)	4/27/2017 6:45:37 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 365233

Its not at all true. As for relevance it is directly relevant to Bentway's statement that I quoted. Bentway was talking about revenue maximization, i-node also discussed the point (although obviously not being for revenue maximization) I pointed out that maximizing government revenue is a bad goal to have. The idea that a 100% tax rate would yield little or no revenue is pretty obvious. Likewise, a tax rate of zero. Obvious != unimportant. Also the Laffer curve is a bit more general principle than that. Its not just 100 percent, but 99% is ok... The point expressed by the curve itself is that there is a revenue maximizing point, not at or close to 100 percent, that as you increase taxes you get more revenue, that you get diminishing returns on extra taxes (which starts well before the revenue maximization point), and then eventually negative returns (and you don't have to wait for 100 percent for the returns to be negative) in terms of extra tax revenue. Closely related to the curve (but not directly part of the curve itself) is that as you approach revenue maximization the hit to the private sector grows while at the same time the extra revenue for the government is smaller for each step you take to the maximization point. Which resulted in years ... an economy in the doldrums. Nonsense. The "decline revenues" part of your statement wasn't nonsense but not always technically correct. Revenue went up, even if it went up less than it would have with higher taxes. And for the long run (or for the short run with capital gains tax cuts) "went up less than it would have", is rather uncertain (but not an unreasonably belief, certainly not nonsense).