|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Laffer curve article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved.|
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?"
"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)
Two graphs in the article
Tax cut evidence?
The introduction states that "economists have found little support for the claim that tax cuts increase tax revenues". However, the whole point of the Laffer curve is that there would be zero revenue at 100%; thus, cutting taxes from 100% should increase revenues. Possibly, some other starting point is meant, but then it should be stated... Piramidon (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- But will cutting rates from 90% increase revenues? How about 60%? Will cutting taxes from 20% raise taxes. No government charges 100% taxation, why would we use a non-existent data point as the entire justification? What does the source actually say? Lipsquid (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Surely it should say "changing economists have found little support for the claim that tax cuts from current rates increase tax revenues" Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Graph by Delphi234
In the "tax revenue growth" graph by Delphi234, I cannot find references for the growth in tax revenue, the sources provided take me to data about income per capita. Can anyone verify this graph? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)