Someone give me some tips on how to defend against Laffer!

[Taverner]

I am in argument with a Repub who swears by Laffer and the Laffer Curve (aka: trickle down)

The core of this is 'have less taxes and companies will make more profit'

I already have said that our Manufacturing base has been sold off, and that the 'trickle-down' never happens. Based on the Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush economies.

[elleng]

1. "It doesn't work."

More:

'Enter the 2008 New York Times article by Austan Goolsbee, which counters Laffer's claim that letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the rich won't be as pronounced as Laffer argues.'

http://miscellaneousprovisions.typepad.com/blog/2010/08/setting-arthur-laffer-against-austan-goolsbee.html

[blogslut]

2. Try this

"We've had ten years with the Bush tax cuts. Where are the jobs?"

[w8liftinglady]

3. from 2007-more to follow

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html

Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues

snip


But Reagan's tax cuts for the nonrich were big money losers, and it took the fiscal discipline of Bill Clinton to mop up the resulting red ink. Laffer gushes with praise for Clinton, but he's also a fan of Clinton's successor. "What Clinton did was, he gave Bush the fiscal flexibility to do what was right," Laffer says. In the face of the recession and terrorist attacks of 2001, Bush "needed to stimulate the economy and spend for defense, and Clinton gave him the ability to do that."

In other words, the Bush tax cuts were meant to create big deficits. But Laffer's O.K. with that. "The Laffer Curve should not be the reason you raise or lower taxes," he says. Perhaps not, but it does make for great campaign promises.



Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html#ixzz0wcrSSp3g

[w8liftinglady]

5. and this..

http://mediamatters.org/research/201004120057

Beck's "Plan" is based on discredited Laffer Curve-much more at site

Bush economist Mankiw says idea that increasing tax rates reduces revenues is not "credible"
Mankiw: "ost economists" agree "supply-sider" claims are not "credible." In a May 2006 Wall Street Journal op-ed, N. Gregory Mankiw, Harvard University economics professor and former chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, wrote: "Some supply-siders like to claim that the distortionary effect of taxes is so large that increasing tax rates reduces tax revenue. Like most economists, I don't find that conclusion credible for most tax hikes, and I doubt Paulson does either." Further, in a 2005 paper, Mankiw writes: "Most economists ... believe that taxes influence national income but doubt that the growth effects are large enough to make tax cuts self-financing."

Bush administration officials acknowledged cutting taxes decreases net revenue
Paulson: "I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves." During his June 2006 confirmation hearing, then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson said, "As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves." The financial information website MarketWatch reported this statement as "echoing the opinion of most economists."

[BootinUp]

4. Try Krugmans blog

I'll see if I can find something

[BootinUp]

6. Here's some

Invincible Ignorance-Krugman

Tax Cut delusions - Krugman

[w8liftinglady]

7. Those are good ones!

[Warpy]

8. Wingers are generally morons, so give him the most mainstream site

out there for a total debunk: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html

When the corporate press starts pointing out some right wing sacred cow of an idea is a total farce, it's time to give it up.

[Taitertots]

9. Tell him the Laffer Curve proves that we should increase taxes on the wealthy

The Bush tax cuts didn't cause the predicted increases in government revenue because they didn't cause the predicted increase in production. That proves that we are on a point in the Laffer curve where increasing taxes will increase production and government revenue.

Republicans tend to forget that there are two sides to the Laffer curve. The relationship emphasizes balanced taxation, not blind opposition to taxation.

[theothersnippywshrub]

10. The Laffer Curve does not illustrate the proposition that cutting taxes increases tax revenue,

although nearly every ignorant and stupid republican believes that it does.

The Laffer Curve illustrates the proposition that there is an optimal rate for any given tax at which tax revenue will be maximized. The number of points on the Laffer Curve where a tax cut increases tax revenue is equal to the number of points where a tax cut decreases tax revenue.


Tax revenue is equal at points A and B (and an infinite number of other points) despite the differences in tax rates and is maximized at point C.

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?entry=7083

[RandomThoughts]

11. Buisnesses do not create jobs nor increase wages.

Demand for goods and services do. If more things are needed then more people are hired to distribute or make those things.

Back when production was less then demand, that argument could be made, because there was always more things needed, and the more money a company had, the more buildings and people it hired.

Once demand is below production, giving them more money will not get them to build a factory if it does not make anything people have the money or desire to buy. Instead the money is moved into places where money makes money, hence the expanse in the financial sectors over the last decades. It is also moved into areas like advertising where it can create demand by creating consumerism.


The only argument that does hold up is if you factor in the psychology, where when someone has a tax that is higher then last year they get upset and out of spite don't spend. Or they move there money to race to the bottom, and shift it to other countries.

It is not about making jobs, it is about controlling the finances, and the 1% business wants to do that.

Note on Race to the bottom, that is the concept of the country that hurts the environment and treats workers the worst as being most profitable, I posted against that many times. Then a group took the name race to the top for school restructuring. And that was not what that tag line was about. Although by them doing that it opens up other actions.

'Race to the top' was suppose to be base lines for industry to set standards and trade restrictions on countries that do not meet those standards. So if you think my comments on Gates get a little severe, that may be one of the reasons. although if they get the schools right, that would be ok, but only can gauge by stories, not sure what direction they going with that program.

And it is real difficult not to get angry about that. Since basically it makes explaining that concept more difficult with that added attachment of meaning.

[rfranklin]

12. Reagan aide David Stockman (R) explains it is horse manure

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html

[TheBigotBasher]

13. Not even a need to "defeat it".

Ask them at what point of the curve do they think the US rates of Corporation Tax and Income Tax is on?

[FormerDittoHead]

14. I hate to actually address the argument, but here goes...

If you LOOK at the Laffer Curve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve , you'll see it describes a SINGLE POINT of optimization where revenue is maximized when where tax rates aren't too low (to the left) but not too high (to the right of the peak).

So if your friend FUCKING UNDERSTANDS the Laffer Curve, he'll see that it does NOT say that cutting tax rates always increases revenues.

If you UNDERSTAND THE LAFFER CURVE, if the economy is on the left side of the peak, cutting taxes clearly REDUCES revenue.

One could easily invoke the Laffer Curve to suggest rates are too low if one is concerned about deficit spending (Republicans only during Democratic administrations after they've all but destroyed our economy).

In the end, the ARGUMENT is to what side of the peak we're on. The contemporary invocation of the curve is to imply we're on the right side of the curve. But the Laffer Curve doesn't make the case one way or the other. It's basically a ruler.

I would confidently argue that in real life the curves aren't so symmetrical or smooth, either. I would also think it would be sensitive to a host of other variables, as well.

[theothersnippywshrub]

16. Ditto to all. n/t

[mmonk]

15. Ask him when did it work.

Ask him to be specific.

[OwnedByFerrets]

17. You can get all the ammunition you need from Thom Hartmann