Forbes (and Data): Art Laffer is wrong... consistantly.

I bought my first home in 2005. The CountryWide agent lost me at "...adjustable...". The average fixed rate was just below 5% (which was ridiculously low at the time), and they were trying to loan me twice what I was asking for with an adjustable rate?

I was smart enough to avoid that shit like the plague, and I'm not exactly what I'd call a rocket surgeon.

But...they tempted you with something that wasn't in your best interests! It's not right to expect you to pay attention to what you're signing! It's fraudulent not to talk you out of what you're too stupid to avoid on your own!

And between the two of them they spent the country into oblivion.

And it isn't so much a tax problem as it is a spending problem. Now 15 trillion in debt. There's not enough rich people in the country to pay that.

And people had all those e-coli and mad cow outbreaks coming too!
Shoulda been "smart", enough to have their own testing equipment.
Same with alar apple juice.
Fuck everybody.

A couple things.

1. It is not impossible for there to be more than one maximum.
2. It is a large stretch to go from stating axioms (you can't get revenue if you don't tax anyone or if you tax them at 100%) to stating that lowering tax rates will result in increased revenues. Not only do we not know exactly what a real world Laffer Curve looks like, but we'd have trouble knowing where we are along that curve given the huge amount of variables involved. The Laffer Curve should serve no more purpose than a discussion point, that someone turned it into 3 decades of economic policy without any hard data to back it up is a fucking joke.

Invalid comparison. You're getting exactly what the paperwork says you're getting in a variable rate subprime rape job.

So no way is it comparable unless there's fine pring on the label that says "Now with deadly microorganisms!"

Unless you think the curve has multiple maxima of the same value, this statement is ridiculous. And, even if it did, that doesn't disprove the point of the curve since the effect would still apply around all of the maxima.

Didn't say "will," said "could." Which is all Laffer claims.

You don't have to know what it looks like to simply state that it is possible for tax cuts to increase revenue.

You grossly oversimplify. That lower taxes can lead to economic growth is not only uncontroversial (except to those in denial of history and common sense), it's been known since ancient times. It's very easy to find evidence supporting that claim. It stands to reason: people only invest when they're not taxed to death.

But if you want hard data? How about the enormous success of the economy for those 3 decades?

Oh, I'm sure there's no obscurantism-ese in those contracts....

It's right there in the name of the type of loan. Adjustable Rate Mortgage.

Inflation adjusted it's not much different than the previous decades. Not only that, you're lacking a control group to compare to. For all you know our economy has grown slower than it would have had taxes remained the same.

To be honest, I think a company could get away with that.

How do you define economic success? Growth concentrated at the top income brackets while the rest stagnated? Growth built on a house of cards? Forcing younger generations to shoulder more and more debt for their education and deferring maintance on basic infastructure to give tax breaks?

Is increased wealth concentration combined with lowered economic mobility economic success?

Only if you think they were designed to help the economy AND NOT to just enrich his owners.

The expectation is they do what they are paid to for and by the customer. The lawyer that represents himself and all that.

That interest rates were flexed to cartoonish proportions that weren't even hinted at as likely is a separate issue...

You means the people who had their taxes cut from 15% to 10%?

Those owners?

The same owners who Obama extended the Bush tax cuts for two years for?

Those owners?

You're talking to a guy whose probably never even had a credit card.

Diacanu everything is in the contract. The lawyers out there would have a field day with the banks if they did something they weren't supposed to do per the contract.

That didn't happen here. That kind of bullshit statistical game--where one argues about "brackets" rather than actual people--has been debunked more times than I can remember.

You're actually trying to sell the concept that people today aren't materially better off than they were 30 years ago. And that flies in the face of everyday experience.

Growth wasn't built on "a house of cards." We are undeniably far wealthier as a society than we were 30 years ago, and just about everyone is much better off.

Last I checked, a great deal of education in this country is controlled by the public sector. If you have an issue with the price of their service going up, you might inquire why. Is it controlled by the market? Or by politicians?

And the government's absolute failure to prioritize spending is not the fault of tax breaks. It's the government's job to spend at a level appropriate to the taxation the public will permit. But they've far, far exceeded that.

If you've got a problem with the lack of "investment" in infrastructure, ask your friends in Congress why THEY don't make that a priority.

Quit drinking the OWS Kool-Aid.

Really, so median income hasn't been stagnant over the past 30 years?

When 'wealth' is on paper (or in a house) and that paper loses all it's value, you don't think that is a house of cards?

The of that burden of paying for higher education has shifted from the shoulders of the state to the shoulders of the students and their parents.

Do you disagree?

So when you can't argue the points, just fall back on trying to tie me to congress.

I have never voted for a single Republican or Democrat that is in Congress IN MY LIFE.

Can you say the same?

So which do you disagree, that wealth has concentrated in the top over the last 30 years or that social mobility has declined?

ah but there's the rub. Politicians ALWAYS feel compelled to spend more than what they take in, so it's really not true to say that they want a tax rate which funds necessary services because no matter what the rate is, and no matter what the revenues are, they will spend more.

That was my first take-away from the OP - Bartlett suggests that if Reagan had done differently there would have been X billion more revenue, but laying aside whether or not he's correct, the outcome remains the same because the government would have still spent X+ more dollars.

Legal? Eh. the law is whatever it is.

Ethical? Not in the same galaxy as.

You stepped in it now, Anc. Facts and reality which contradict ideology generally aren't liked around here.

Sure, yeah. That's a totally honest and accurate portrayal of all the exchanges in this thread.

You'd think, with all that towering intellectual superiority, that you wouldn't have to resort to insultingly obvious bullshit like that.

Nope. The politicians in Alberta actually paid off the provincial debt some years ago, and before the world economy took a dive, the Federal government was running surpluses.

There ya' go.

Not only are you misquoting Nova, but the US did run surpluses in the 50's and 60's.

Maybe you should edit out the "always" as well.

I forgot you're just a total dick.

Rich people would have remained rich without the tax cuts.

But yes, I absolutely believe that they were designed by the rich people to help rich people become even richer.

You only have to look at who was involved to see that.

Which is why we should get rid of the Income Tax and go to a Fair Tax system.