Kansas - The News Just Keeps getting Worse

[Jimmy Higgins]

You're not overthinking, you're misthinking. You say 100% tax would mean everyone working for the government but that's not what it means. A 100% tax means your take-home pay would be $0. Obviously nobody would bother to work in such a situation.

That is incorrect as it does not address what services that are provided. If you took no pay home, but had good housing, health care, 3 weeks of vacation, free transportation, then the no take home pay works out.

The Laffer Curve is shit because it doesn't address outlays of the government, only revenue. Which is why the Laffer Curve is shit. And of course, NO ONE IS SAYING WE SHOULD TAX PEOPLE AT 100%!!!!!

 

[Elixir]

NO ONE IS SAYING WE SHOULD TAX PEOPLE AT 100%!!!!!

Right. They should be taxed at 110% so they are always in debt and have to keep working to pay it off.

 

[bilby]

It may be obvious to you, but it's far from obvious to the millions of volunteer workers worldwide who do exactly that.

I dislike the term "volunteer workers". They're simply volunteers. They're giving their time to do something they value.

So what? I am under no obligation to use language on the basis of what you do or do not like; You understood what I meant, so where's the beef? Volunteers who do work are, by definition, volunteer workers - as distinct from paid workers.

 

[bilby]

It may be obvious to you, but it's far from obvious to the millions of volunteer workers worldwide who do exactly that.

Most (if not all) of them have, or have had, a paying job that keeps or has kept them fed, clothed and healthy enough to be able to do something useful as a volunteer...

Indeed. And some of them have been 100% supported by government, either via direct benefit payments, or by being employed by the government, or both.

 

[coloradoatheist]

You're not overthinking, you're misthinking. You say 100% tax would mean everyone working for the government but that's not what it means. A 100% tax means your take-home pay would be $0. Obviously nobody would bother to work in such a situation.

That is incorrect as it does not address what services that are provided. If you took no pay home, but had good housing, health care, 3 weeks of vacation, free transportation, then the no take home pay works out.

The Laffer Curve is shit because it doesn't address outlays of the government, only revenue. Which is why the Laffer Curve is shit. And of course, NO ONE IS SAYING WE SHOULD TAX PEOPLE AT 100%!!!!!

The problem with the Laffer curve isn't that the exact points along the curve aren't known. On simple models its easy. Revenue = base * rate. So if rate decreases then base has to increase. Base can increase several ways but it's hard to show how just a 1% drop in rate is going to show a big increase in base. Not many people or companies will move for a 1% change. 10%, 15% yes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're not overthinking, you're misthinking. You say 100% tax would mean everyone working for the government but that's not what it means. A 100% tax means your take-home pay would be $0. Obviously nobody would bother to work in such a situation.

That is incorrect as it does not address what services that are provided. If you took no pay home, but had good housing, health care, 3 weeks of vacation, free transportation, then the no take home pay works out.

The Laffer Curve is shit because it doesn't address outlays of the government, only revenue. Which is why the Laffer Curve is shit. And of course, NO ONE IS SAYING WE SHOULD TAX PEOPLE AT 100%!!!!!

You misunderstand. You're making up compensation that is not there. At 100% tax you get nothing, you starve on the street.

 

[coloradoatheist]

That is incorrect as it does not address what services that are provided. If you took no pay home, but had good housing, health care, 3 weeks of vacation, free transportation, then the no take home pay works out.

The Laffer Curve is shit because it doesn't address outlays of the government, only revenue. Which is why the Laffer Curve is shit. And of course, NO ONE IS SAYING WE SHOULD TAX PEOPLE AT 100%!!!!!

You misunderstand. You're making up compensation that is not there. At 100% tax you get nothing, you starve on the street.

Or you get Greece and most work is done under the table or you suddenly make half of what you did before. But a 1% change isn't going to make that much different on changing the behavior.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The problem with the Laffer curve is understanding the mathematics of it all. If you assume a rosy scenario that vastly over-estimates revenues, your system won't work. You can adjust your curve based on bad estimates and its so much nonsense. The Laffer curve is not a magic system that tells you what numbers to use to get a political free lunch. The big problem is those politicians that use the Laffer curve as a rhetorical device to pursue bad conservative economic policies based on bad assumptions based solely on wishful ideological thinking. On top of this is post-failure rationalization that usually follows when some far right politically motivated economic plan leads to disaster. Like Kansas. Where Arthur Laffer himself brushes off Brownback's economic failure with the claim it's working, it just needs more time.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That is incorrect as it does not address what services that are provided. If you took no pay home, but had good housing, health care, 3 weeks of vacation, free transportation, then the no take home pay works out.

The Laffer Curve is shit because it doesn't address outlays of the government, only revenue. Which is why the Laffer Curve is shit. And of course, NO ONE IS SAYING WE SHOULD TAX PEOPLE AT 100%!!!!!

You misunderstand. You're making up compensation that is not there. At 100% tax you get nothing, you starve on the street.

Making up compensation that is not there? At 100% you get whatever the government sees to provide. It could be a modest living or Venezuela. The Laffer Curve ignores outlays, which is one of a few reasons why it is bullshit.

 

[coloradoatheist]

You misunderstand. You're making up compensation that is not there. At 100% tax you get nothing, you starve on the street.

Making up compensation that is not there? At 100% you get whatever the government sees to provide. It could be a modest living or Venezuela. The Laffer Curve ignores outlays, which is one of a few reasons why it is bullshit.

The Laffer curve is to maximize government revenue with the effects of tax rates. You are addressing the keynesian multiplier.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Making up compensation that is not there? At 100% you get whatever the government sees to provide. It could be a modest living or Venezuela. The Laffer Curve ignores outlays, which is one of a few reasons why it is bullshit.

The Laffer curve is to maximize government revenue with the effects of tax rates. You are addressing the keynesian multiplier.

But it's completely uninformative. It's merely stating the obvious--no revenue at 0% because there's no tax, no revenue at 100% because people won't work for $0 take-home, revenue between these two points.

There's no numbers on the curve, there's nothing to indicate how to calculate them.