Talk:Laffer curve

Terminology

What is a "stylized graph?" I have degrees in math and engineering, and have never heard of such a thing; neither does a Google search turn up any significant hits. Perhaps this should just read "graph?"

vague

"There is serious doubt about the relevance considering a single marginal tax rate."

The relevance of what? Of considering a marginal tax rate? Of the curve? Vague. Surely the curve. But needs clarity.

Records and Analysis

Lawrence, there is a difference between simple records and analysis.

An academic study says, "things must be this way."

Simple record says, "this happened."

A record doesn't say, "what happened could not have been otherwise" but rather "this happened to occur." It's like saying "Babe Ruth happened to have a lot of strike outs during his period of home run hits." Almost anything can serve as a source for the latter, and since this is a simple matter of record, I really don't care WHAT source you want to use. It's just boring news about 2000s tax revenues that HAPPENED to agree with the theory predicted by Hsing in the 1990s. Let's not war about the news, but work together until you're okay with it.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk)

Just to be clear -- I'm not interested in an edit war, but rather looking for how to collaborate on something non-controversial. The controversy is in the theory of what must and should optimize tax revenue (which involves academic sources). The non-controversial material is the simple history of what levels have experienced maximum revenues so far. That's no more controversial than Babe Ruth's batting average. It says nothing about what must or should occur, but rather reports on what has so far. Since the record happens to fall within the range of one academic source already listed in the article, and the Romer paper I added, it is certainly of interest in the article. There's no reason not to list it, and if maximum revenues change to correspond to a different academic theory, then it's a simple matter of updating it.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk)

"Other" section

This is a faulty edit and i believe should be reworded or deleted.

Laffer has presented the examples of Russia and the Baltic states, which instituted a flat tax with rates lower than 35% and whose economies started growing soon after implementation. He has similarly referred to the economic outcome of the Kemp-Roth tax act, the Kennedy tax cuts, the 1920s tax cuts, and the changes in US capital gains tax structure in 1997.[3]

The Laffer Curve is a formula regarding maximizing tax revenue and makes no claims on GDP growth that doesn't include taxation growth Lipsquid (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

That would depend on whether the Laffer curve includes future govt revenue - I have not seen (from a very quick glance at the article) any sources that say that it only applies to current govt revenue, and even if there were sources that said this, I am not sure that this would not apply e.g. if a govt said it would lower tax rates in the future, economic activity could increase due to the announcement and therefore current govt revenues could increase Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC on the Laffer Curve, economists poll

I have opened an RfC on the economists poll and the Laffer curve on the Jude Wanniski talk page. The discussion is similar to what we discussed above, if you participated in that discussion, I would appreciate your comments on that RfC as well. Thanks. Bonewah (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

It may be relevant to this RfC's outcome to mention that the passage in question has been added again to this article (into the lead section!) after some time, under the pretence of an "ungoing edit war" about it. This is even though there seemed to be agreement to leave it out (including by the editor reinstating it now, at least from the lede). Let's please determine whether this RfC's consensus applies. LjL (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The rules for an RfC are here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment Lipsquid (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

BTW Bonewah has deleted this paragraph 5 times in the last 6 months. that is by definition a person guilty of edit warring. He should get a topic ban. Lipsquid (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

An RfC on a different article does not apply to this article. What may be right for an article on one topic, may be wrong for an article on another topic. I don't have a problem with this being in the lede (except for the "it's a Laffer" quote), especially since those polled are the top of the profession.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

That may be so in general Volunteer Marek, but I don't see why that is that not the case here - surely all the same reasons apply? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, no. One can argue that criticisms of the Laffer curve are only loosely related to the topic of Jude Wanniski (I actually disagree but nm). But obviously criticisms of the Laffer curve are more than loosely related to the topic of... the Laffer curve.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Except that is only a small part of why the edit in question was rejected. Nowhere in the reference provided is there any mention of "the empirical relevancy of the Laffer Curve", describing it as such here is clearly WP:OR, irrespective of what article it appears in. In any event the Onus is clearly on you and lipsquid to demonstrate that there is some reason why this material should be included. Bonewah (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Except "rejecting the empirical relevancy" is just a description of what the source says. It's called paraphrasing (maybe I used "big words" or something but so what, this is an encyclopedia). Previously it said "rejected the rationale" which was a misrepresentation of the source. None of these guys and gals said "the theory behind the Laffer Curve is wrong". They all said "the results that Laffer emphasized are irrelevant to the real world". So no, it's not OR except for some upside-down definition of OR where describing a source accurately is OR but misrepresenting it (perhaps with the purpose of eventually removing it altogether) is not.

And no, WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a sufficient grounds for removal. Look, we know what's going to happen here. No matter the argument, the sources, the policies, you're going to object to this material. You've been engaged in like a two year long slow moving edit war over this (perhaps it's time to drop the stick and step away from the horse carcass?). So when you bring up WP:ONUS you're clearly doing so in bad faith in an attempt to WP:GAME Wikipedia policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

We had this discussion over at Supply-side economics and came to the somewhat consensus that we should describe the poll in a much more neutral fashion and not in the lede. Im sure you remember as you participated in that very conversation. This is why this article already contains this information in the "other" subsection: "In 2012, economists surveyed by the University of Chicago rejected the viewpoint that the Laffer Curve's postulation of increased tax revenue through a rate cut applies to federal US income taxes of the time in the medium term. When asked whether a “cut in federal income tax rates in the US right now would raise taxable income enough so that the annual total tax revenue would be higher within five years than without the tax cut,” none of the economists surveyed agreed and 71% disagreed". Why you are so insistent that we add this information again, in the lede, with wording that was already rejected is beyond me.

As for the rest, ive only been at this for a few months and would be done by now if it hadnt been for you and lipsquid constantly re-adding the same material and insisting that we go over the same ground over and over again. Its beyond absurd that after insisting that I start an RfC, that was closed in favor of exclude, that you think you can simply re-add this material and that *I* should drop the stick. Sophistry, pure and simple. I bring up ONUS because any reasonable, good faith editor would agree that after loosing an RfC about this exact topic, that the onus is on you to establish that this case is different. Bonewah (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

First, that wasn't actually the outcome of that discussion. The relevant link (which you failed to provide) is here. Second, there was indeed some rough consensus for rewording the phrasing. Which is exactly what I have just done! And now you're here objecting to that! That sort of shows that you're not discussing this issue in good faith - you seem to have a "my way or the highway" approach to this topic (as also evidenced by your two-year long edit war about it, against multiple editors). Third, there's absolutely nothing absurd, nor is there any "sophistry" involved, about the fact that what may be off-topic in one article (Jude Wanniski) is perfectly on topic in another (the Laffer Curve). This has been explained repeatedly to you over and ... over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, yet you still pretend like you've never heard that before. Classic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. So please, stop lecturing others about "good faith" and start acting with some yourself. No legitimate reason for removal has been provided except "some RfC somewhere else" or "original research!" (which is bunk, as has been also explained).Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Lets keep this simple. this edit which contains all the information you are so obsessed with, was added on Oct 9 and has been fairly stable since. On feb 4th Lipsquid added this edit which duplicates the information from the previous edit, but with, in my opinion much worse wording, which is what your re-adding as well. What is your justification for adding this duplicate material? Bonewah (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Where is this cited material duplicated in the article? Trying to understand your argument. Lipsquid (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

It is already in the article in the "Other" section. As per earlier discussions, not only is the wording of the first sentence OR (it extrapolates from "federal income taxes" to all taxes in the USA), but it is far too specific to be placed in the lead - it refers to US federal income taxes in 2012. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Ahh thanks, we should take it out of the "Other" section and just leave it in the lead where it is and at various times has been. Lipsquid (talk) 04:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you might have missed my second sentence - not only is the wording of the first sentence OR (it extrapolates from "federal income taxes" to all taxes in the USA), but it is far too specific to be placed in the lead - it refers to US federal income taxes in 2012. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I did miss it, i ignored it because it has been brought up countless times already. A quote from a reliable source can't be [WP:OR] and bringing it up 10 more times won't change the fact that it is not original research. Also, I read the second part and tax cuts don't raise revenue unless the tax rate is on the right side of the Laffer Curve, (this is an integral part of the theory and highly doubt you want to dispute that). We are no where near the right side of the curve, according to the various reliable sources quoted in the article. I can't think of anything more important that the average reader needs to walk away knowing if interested in the theory. Lipsquid (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence is OR, not the second. If you want to include quotes from people in the source, then go ahead, but I don't see how you can say it is suitable for the lead. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Lipsquid, you previously agreed to the version of this article that did not have this material in the lede and was worded as we have it in the "other" section. See here where you said "I don't have a problem with this being removed from the lede on the Laffer Curve article" Further you agreed to the state of the article on Oct 15th saying "Thank you for the edit, I like it much better!" which was the last message in that thread. Whats changed? Why the need to put this back into the lede with wording that you previously agreed needed to be changed? Bonewah (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)