Lemmy Lemmy:
sandorski sandorski:
No. At the same time Government can't keep Cutting Taxes
(what the biggest proponents of the Laffer Curve always spout) and always have Increases in Revenue.
Well that's precisely why you need to know where on the curve we are. If you ignore it, you don't know what effect a change in taxation rates will have on revenues. It's helpful to know whether an increase in tax rates will net higher or lower tax revenues before you introduce the tax change, no? And what do you mean by "can't keep cutting taxes"? That's a meaningless statement without knowing the goal behind cutting tax. In general, however, governments don't cut taxes. That's not what they do. So there aren't any governments that "keep cutting taxes". 99 times out of 100 a change in taxation means an increase.
I'm not sure what you mean by "proponents of the Laffer curve". People aren't proponents of the Laffer curve, they're observers of it. It's a measure, like "temperature" or "income" or "score after the 2nd period". There's no emotion or vested political interest in its calculation.
Here's a very recent attempt at estimating the Laffer curve. It's conclusions are similar to most studies, that being that we're very near the peak.
Plenty of Governments Cut Taxes. Hell, the Liberals were cutting Taxes. Sorry, those who are always talking about the Laffer Curve are the same idiots who Cut Taxes then Borrow Money to make up the subsequent shortfall. It's become a buzzword to make poor Policy sound like good Economics. Except it's nothing of the sort.
Here's something really simple and actually works at reducing Taxes:
1) Balance the Budget through Increased Taxes and Budget Cuts
2) Wait for a Surplus to develope
3) Use part of the Surplus to Cut Taxes
4) Success
Anyone trying to do it any other way will Fail practically 100% of the time.
CKA Uber 
