Where Are We On The Laffer Curve?

meganmcardle.jpgThe economist Murray Rothbard believed that the Laffer curve was one of the great myths of the Reaganite right, distorting Republican economic policy and distracting Republicans from the goal of reducing the size and scope of government. It was an economic idea that could be explained on a cocktail napkin, so it appealed massively to politicians and propagandists. And it contained an important kernel of truth. But there have always been serious problems with the way it was used by supply siders.

"It is true that if tax rates are 99%, and they are cut to 95%, tax revenue will go up," Rothbard wrote in Making Economic Sense. "But there is no reason to assume such simple connections at any other time…People are not going to stop working or leave the country because of a relatively small tax hike, or do the reverse because of a tax cut."

He could list off a half dozen problems with the claims of supply siders about the Laffer curve. But the most devastating was this one: they had no metric for showing where we were on the curve at any given time. And yet this never stopped them from always claiming we were on the diminishing tax-revenue side of the curve, regardless of what the marginal tax rates were at the time.

And apparently the great myth of the Laffer curve remains central to conservative orthodoxy. The long-legged and razor smart Megan McArdle of Asymetrical Information reports that she recently had a book review spiked by a conservative magazine because she had written that the Laffer curve didn't apply to American levels of taxation. "The Laffer curve and the supply siders pushing it seem to be the teacher's unions of the right," McArdle writes.

Now we're not sure that she's right when she claims that the Laffer curve doesn't apply to current levels of taxation. But we're not sure she's wrong, either. As we've said, there's never been a plausible metric for figuring this out except in the most extreme cases, which renders the Laffer curve useless as a predictive model.

More importantly, there are probably many Laffer curves operating in our economy at any point because there are many kinds of taxation. Income taxes. Corporate taxes. Capital gains taxes. Excise taxes. Sales taxes. Because these are set at different levels and hit at different points in our economy, we may well be on the left side of the curve for some taxes and the right on others.

In any case, it's distressing to see the closing of the conservative mind to economic debate. No wonder those Republican presidential hopefuls were so terrible in the Michigan debate.

I take it all back [Asymetrical Information]

Comments

Posted by chris, Oct 17, 2007 11:55AM

Damn, didn't know she was that cute. Now my pants are getting asymetrical thinking about her.

Posted by , Oct 17, 2007 12:13PM

Wow...a finance blogger that knows of Murray Rothbard, very impressive.

There was a good Von Mises conference this past weekend, lots of Rothbard shout-outs.

Posted by A, Oct 17, 2007 12:25PM

Cute?? How desperate are you!!

Posted by can't buy love, Oct 17, 2007 12:38PM

looks like she got hit with an Ugly Stick

Posted by John Carney, Oct 17, 2007 12:46PM

I was sorry to miss that conference, especially since many friends and acquaintances would have been there. But Shreveport beckoned...

Posted by gab, Oct 17, 2007 1:00PM

I don't concede the "razor-sharp" thing, but I'd do her in a pinch, and if you say you wouldn't, you're either a liar or a lot younger than I am...

Posted by Shecky Buffett, Oct 17, 2007 1:07PM

Laffer Curve? More like the BOHICA curve. (Bend Over Here It Comes Again !!)

Posted by Captain Stabbin, Oct 17, 2007 1:17PM

Carney you haven't told us why you were in Shreveport in the first place.

I assume that you were just down there doing some recon work on the talent (or lack thereof). Yes?

Posted by Michael Bolton, Oct 17, 2007 1:28PM

Sidetrack: I will agree with Carney that "those Republican presidential hopefuls were so terrible in the Michigan debate." They were. But it sure seems that the more you know about economics, the less you want to show it (e.g Romney), for you will be talking much much above your audience's level (union workers and semidocts). So the quick solution is to stick to the same old cliche slogans (which the dems love so much).

Posted by Josh, Oct 17, 2007 2:12PM

People are not going to stop working or leave the country because of a relatively small tax hike, or do the reverse because of a tax cut."

Why do these liberals even try to comment on matters related to money? Their agenda is simple - take all money from everyone and then redistribute it!

Where was this idiot all these days when teh Eastern European countries and Ireland / Iceland etc slashed tax rates and then witnessed an economic boom and massive increase in investments and related economic prosperity?

And what is relatively small? Relative to what? This is kindergarten logic. 'You are already paying 50% in taxes. How does it matter if you pay 53% instead (dumb blond wide-eyed stare)"

What a douche.

Posted by , Oct 17, 2007 2:29PM

Good to see Karl Rove writing under the name "Josh" these days.

Let's see: Bill "O" is a sexual harrasser, Rush is a drug addict who doesn't want his divorce proceedings made public, Hannity is being considered for excommunication, Ann says Jews are imperfect (like her relative Adolph said a long time ago), and to help Osama get the names of CIA agents, Scooter and Novak (who only can come out a night to avoid sunlight) did their best. Mr. Newt leaves his wife as she is recovering from cancer surgury and on and on with more spending than any US "conservative" gov't has ever done.

Why do Conservatives even try to comment on matters related to money? Let's ask Cavuto.

Posted by Michael Bolton, Oct 17, 2007 2:40PM

ad hominem...always a good tool in the hands of the less skilled debaters...

Posted by , Oct 17, 2007 2:42PM

2:29

Typical feeble minded liberal reply. Completely ignore the issue at hand, but instead rant about a bunch of conservative media personalities. You're looking good champ, really.

Posted by MG, Oct 17, 2007 2:48PM

As recent Federal IRS "revenues" will attest, the Laffer curve does indeed work, at least for capital gains (deferrable).
Sure, a move from a 40% to a 45% tax rate might not compel me individually to quit working. Still, you have to think about taxes in terms of the margin: Would a tax change impact risk tolerance/return expectations? (Would an entrepreneur risk as much if her potential return - post tax - would be less? Go ahead and change the tax assumption in a DCF model and tell me what happens.). Would it impact decisions by the marginal worker (say, a household's second earner; would a spouse work or stay home with kids if a greater chunk were going to the government? For many spouses, working and hiring a nanny versus staying at home is already a break-even decision. Throw in a higher tax rate, and that pendulum results in a stay at home mom/dad and a fired nanny - two lost jobs and two lost tax revenue streams.)

Posted by Anonymous, Oct 17, 2007 2:55PM

For the Lafferites, the "have mores" must win over the "haves" and the "have nots" don't exist.

Posted by bucky, Oct 17, 2007 3:01PM

To get to the real problem of the Laffer curve, you need to take it one step further: That lower taxes increase gov't revenues AND that is a good thing. Personally, I'd like to see lower taxes lead to lower gov't revenue and lower gov't spending. But I'm sure you've got some lovely charts telling me how I'm wrong.

Posted by , Oct 17, 2007 3:01PM

2:55. From a purely tax/econ perspective you're right. The have nots do not pay taxes, 'cause they have not. This is economics not ethics or social work.

Posted by huh?, Oct 17, 2007 3:06PM

Josh, whether you believe in the Laffer curve or not, I think it's pretty important to know that Rothbard was an anarcho-capitalist. It's kind of like being a liberal except the exact opposite.

Posted by John Carney, Oct 17, 2007 3:09PM

Josh, not everyone who disagrees with supply siders can fairly be labeled a liberal. Murray Rothbard, for instance, was only a liberal in the sense it would have been used in the nineteenth century. That is, he was a classical liberal. But he was hardly a liberal in the way you mean here.

Posted by soupcon, Oct 17, 2007 3:36PM

You've misunderstood the Laffer Curve, maybe deliberately.Libertarians certainly have for decades, and it suits their purposes.You can continue to cut marginal tax rates until the marginal increase in tax revenues is zero.Ask Megan to try that then report back at what point this takes place.I'll take a wild stab and say you could move federal rates down to 20%, and watch the revenue growth rates over a 36 mos period.If it doesn't work, you can always raise then again, and goodness knows, liberals love to do that.

Posted by Josh, Oct 17, 2007 3:43PM

Carney,

My mistake. I mistook Rothbard's comment's for McArdle's.

As you said, the Laffer Curve (or whatever else anyone calls it) exists because it is a simple illustration of optimization. There will exist a maxima somewhere between 0% and 100%. One can argue about where that lies but arguing against the optimization concept it ridiculous.

However, Rothbard's statement is also demonstrably very incorrect. Changes in levels of taxation, even relatively minor ones have very visible changes in investment and spending patterns. Great minds have been wrong. Even Keynes was proven off the mark, if not entirely wrong' by Hayek and co.

Also, I hate it when the modern day socialists (that I think is more appropriate rather than 'liberal') cherry-pick comments from here and there to bolster patently untrue claims.

I do not think conservative minds have 'closed' to economic debate. What I rather see is a revival of socialist / communist economic philosophy bolstered by immense popular support. You can stick to principles when there is a 'debate.' Currently there is no debate. What can you argue with Krugman (NYT) about when he is using his supposed academic credentials to feed utter nonsense to masses, who are lapping it up.?

I think a stretch of free-market capitalism fed prosperity has gotten everyone to forget the terrible shape the economy was in during the pre-Reagan era. So there is renewed nostalgia for the golden(??) 60s/70s. The country is ripe for a fresh round of socialist decay. Misguided statements of the type mentioned above from otherwise free-market thinkers and disingenous statements from born again socialists (Buffet/Gross etc) are simple feeding fuel into the fire.

Posted by Jeff D, Oct 17, 2007 5:26PM

I'd hit it

Posted by Jeff D, Oct 17, 2007 5:27PM

I'd hit it...

And Josh has been listening to too much Rush...

Posted by Bugs Meany, Oct 18, 2007 8:45AM

@ 2:29

"to help Osama get the names of CIA agents, Scooter and Novak (who only can come out a night to avoid sunlight) did their best"

Yup, those bastards endangered Super Spy Valerie Plame during her most important mission (Operation: Who Took All the Staplers from the Supply Room?). FRY SCOOTER!!!!11

Post Your Comment