One of my frustrating missions in life is to educate policy makers on the Laffer Curve.
This means teaching folks on the left that tax policy affects incentives to earn and report taxable income. As such, I try to explain, this means it is wrong to assume a simplistic linear relationship between tax rates and tax revenue. If you double tax rates, for instance, you won’t double tax revenue.
But it also means teaching folks on the right that it is wildly wrong to claim that “all tax cuts pay for themselves” or that “tax increases always mean less revenue.” Those results occur in rare circumstances, but the real lesson of the Laffer Curve is that some types of tax policy changes will result in changes to taxable income, and those shifts in taxable income will partially offset the impact of changes in tax rates.
However, even though both sides may need some education, it seems that the folks on the left are harder to teach – probably because the Laffer Curve is more of a threat to their core beliefs.
If you explain to a conservative politician that a goofy tax cut (such as a new loophole to help housing) won’t boost the economy and that the static revenue estimate from the bureaucrats at the Joint Committee on Taxation is probably right, they usually understand.
But liberal politicians get very agitated if you tell them that higher marginal tax rates on investors, entrepreneurs, and small business owners probably won’t generate much tax revenue because of incentives (and ability) to reduce taxable income.
To be fair, though, some folks on the left are open to real-world evidence. And this IRS data from the 1980s is particularly effective at helping them understand the high cost of class-warfare taxation.
There’s lots of data here, but pay close attention to the columns on the right and see how much income tax was collected from the rich in 1980, when the top tax rate was 70 percent, and how much was collected from the rich in 1988, when the top tax rate was 28 percent.
The key takeaway is that the IRS collected fives times as much income tax from the rich when the tax rate was far lower. This isn’t just an example of the Laffer Curve. It’s the Laffer Curve on steroids and it’s one of those rare examples of a tax cut paying for itself.
Folks on the right, however, should be careful about over-interpreting this data. There were lots of factors that presumably helped generate these results, including inflation, population growth, and some of Reagan’s other policies. So we don’t know whether the lower tax rates on the rich caused revenues to double, triple, or quadruple. Ask five economists and you’ll get nine answers.
But we do know that the rich paid much more when the tax rate was much lower.
This is an important lesson because Obama wants to run this experiment in reverse. He hasn’t proposed to push the top tax rate up to 70 percent, thank goodness, but the combined effect of his class-warfare policies would mean a substantial increase in marginal tax rates.
We don’t know the revenue-maximizing point of the Laffer Curve, but Obama seems determined to push tax rates so high that the government collects less revenue. Not that we should be surprised. During the 2008 campaign, he actually said he would like higher tax rates even if the government collected less revenue.
That’s class warfare on steroids, and it definitely belong on the list of the worst things Obama has ever said.
But I don’t care about the revenue-maximizing point of the Laffer Curve. Policy makers should set tax rates so we’re at the growth-maximizing level instead.
To broaden the understanding of the Laffer Curve, share these three videos with your friends and colleagues.
This first video explains the theory of the Laffer Curve.
This second video reviews some of the real-world evidence.
And this video exposes the biased an inaccurate “static scoring” of the Joint Committee on Taxation.
And once we educate everybody about the Laffer Curve, we can then concentrate on teaching them about the equivalent relationship on the spending side of the fiscal ledger, the Rahn Curve.
[…] other words, the lower tax rates in the U.K. had the same positive impact as the lower tax rates in the U.S., both in terms of encouraging growth and confirming the Laffer […]
[…] other words, the lower tax rates in the U.K. had the same positive impact as the lower tax rates in the U.S., both in terms of encouraging growth and confirming the Laffer […]
[…] helps to explain why rich people paid five times as much tax to the IRS during the 1980s when Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] For instance, Reagan and his team never claimed that the 1981 tax cuts would be self-financing (though IRS data shows that lower tax rates on the rich did produce more revenue). […]
[…] other words, the lower tax rates in the U.K. had the same positive impact as the lower tax rates in the U.S., both in terms of encouraging growth and confirming the Laffer […]
[…] other words, the lower tax rates in the U.K. had the same positive impact as the lower tax rates in the U.S., both in terms of encouraging growth and confirming the Laffer […]
[…] It will be the reverse of Reagan’s very successful approach, which actually led to dramatic increases in tax payments from upper-income […]
[…] So let’s focus instead on some tax-related variables. Here’s a chart that I shared back in 2015, showing that upper-income taxpayers paid more when tax rates were reduced (the same thing happened in the 1980s). […]
[…] helps to explain why rich people paid five times as much tax to the IRS during the 1980s when Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] For instance, Reagan and his team never claimed that the 1981 tax cuts would be self-financing (though IRS data shows that lower tax rates on the rich did produce more revenue). […]
[…] his only accomplishment was ending malaise and restoring American prosperity thanks to lower tax rates and other pro-market reforms, he would be a great […]
[…] For instance, Reagan and his team never claimed that the 1981 tax cuts would be self-financing (though IRS data shows that lower tax rates on the rich did produce more revenue). […]
[…] For instance, Reagan and his team never claimed that the 1981 tax cuts would be self-financing (though IRS data shows that lower tax rates on the rich did produce more revenue). […]
[…] his only accomplishment was ending malaise and restoring American prosperity thanks to lower tax rates and other pro-market reforms, he would be a great […]
[…] Such big swings only happen in rare circumstances. […]
[…] I offered a Laffer Curve lesson to President Obama, but I doubt it had any […]
[…] graphically illustrates why politicians are wrong if they think you can double tax revenue by doubling tax rates (or that revenues will drop by 50 […]
[…] graphically illustrates why politicians are wrong if they think you can double tax revenue by doubling tax rates (or that revenues will drop by 50 […]
[…] helps to explain why rich people paid five times as much tax to the IRS during the 1980s when Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] I offered a Laffer Curve lesson to President Obama, but I doubt it had any […]
[…] Such big swings only happen in rare circumstances. […]
[…] Such big swings only happen in rare circumstances. […]
[…] helps to explain why rich people paid five times as much tax to the IRS during the 1980s when Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] on the left ever tries to produce an alternative explanation for the IRS data showing that rich people paid a lot more taxafter Ronald Reagan lowered the top income tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] his only accomplishment was ending malaise and restoring American prosperity thanks to lower tax rates and other pro-market reforms, he would be a great […]
[…] I offered a Laffer Curve lesson to President Obama, but I doubt it had any […]
[…] perhaps combined with a bit of inflation fighting. And it’s definitely true that Reagan’s tax rate reductions and his restoration of sound money were wonderful […]
[…] I offered a Laffer Curve lesson to President Obama, but I doubt it had any […]
[…] his only accomplishment was ending malaise and restoring American prosperity thanks to lower tax rates and other pro-market reforms, he would be a great […]
[…] I offered a Laffer Curve lesson to President Obama, but I doubt it had any […]
[…] his only accomplishment was ending malaise and restoring American prosperity thanks to lower tax rates and other pro-market reforms, he would be a great […]
[…] his only accomplishment was ending malaise and restoring American prosperity thanks to lower tax rates and other pro-market reforms, he would be a great […]
[…] here’s the IRS data from 1980 and 1988 for taxpayers impacted by the highest tax rate. I’ve circled (in red) the relevant data […]
[…] his only accomplishment was ending malaise and restoring American prosperity thanks to lower tax rates and other pro-market reforms, he would be a great […]
[…] his only accomplishment was ending malaise and restoring American prosperity thanks to lower tax rates and other pro-market reforms, he would be a great […]
[…] his only accomplishment was ending malaise and restoring American prosperity thanks to lower tax rates and other pro-market reforms, he would be a great […]
[…] This does not mean that lower tax rates produce more revenue, though that sometimes happens. […]
[…] here’s the IRS data from 1980 and 1988 for taxpayers impacted by the highest tax rate. I’ve circled (in red) the relevant data […]
[…] This does not mean that lower tax rates produce more revenue, though that sometimes happens. […]
[…] This does not mean that lower tax rates produce more revenue, though that sometimes happens. […]
[…] on the left ever tries to produce an alternative explanation for the IRS data showing that rich people paid a lot more taxafter Ronald Reagan lowered the top income tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] here’s the IRS data from 1980 and 1988 for taxpayers impacted by the highest tax rate. I’ve circled (in red) the relevant data […]
[…] here’s the IRS data from 1980 and 1988 for taxpayers impacted by the highest tax rate. I’ve circled (in red) the relevant data […]
[…] Based on what happened in the 1980s, we can safely assume that Biden’s class-warfare plan won’t raise much […]
[…] here’s the IRS data from 1980 and 1988 for taxpayers impacted by the highest tax rate. I’ve circled (in red) the relevant data […]
[…] helps to explain why rich people paid five times as much tax to the IRS during the 1980s when Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] helps to explain why rich people paid five times as much tax to the IRS during the 1980s when Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] on the left ever tries to produce an alternative explanation for the IRS data showing that rich people paid a lot more taxafter Ronald Reagan lowered the top income tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] on the left ever tries to produce an alternative explanation for the IRS data showing that rich people paid a lot more tax after Ronald Reagan lowered the top income tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] helps to explain why rich people paid five times as much tax to the IRS during the 1980s when Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] lowered in the United States during the Reagan years, a policy that boosted the economy and led to more revenues from the rich. Biden now wants to run that experiment in reverse, so don’t expect positive […]
[…] Based on what happened in the 1980s, we can safely assume that Biden’s class-warfare plan won’t raise much […]
[…] Based on what happened in the 1980s, we can safely assume that Biden’s class-warfare plan won’t raise much […]
[…] Based on what happened in the 1980s, we can safely assume that Biden’s class-warfare plan won’t raise much […]
[…] helps to explain why rich people paid five times as much tax to the IRS during the 1980s when Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] lowered in the United States during the Reagan years, a policy that boosted the economy and led to more revenues from the rich. Biden now wants to run that experiment in reverse, so don’t expect positive […]
[…] If you want an example of tax cut that was self-financing, check out the IRS data on how much the rich paid before and after the Reagan tax […]
[…] If you want an example of tax cut that was self-financing, check out the IRS data on how much the rich paid before and after the Reagan tax […]
[…] helps to explain why rich people paid five times as much tax to the IRS during the 1980s when Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] helps to explain why rich people paid five times as much tax to the IRS during the 1980s when Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] lowered in the United States during the Reagan years, a policy that boosted the economy and led to more revenues from the rich. Biden now wants to run that experiment in reverse, so don’t expect positive […]
[…] lowered in the United States during the Reagan years, a policy that boosted the economy and led to more revenues from the rich. Biden now wants to run that experiment in reverse, so don’t expect positive […]
[…] I offered a Laffer Curve lesson to President Obama, but I doubt it had any […]
[…] By the way, Biden’s not the first president with this spiteful mindset. Obama also said he wanted to raise the tax rate on capital gains even if the government didn’t get any more revenue. […]
[…] By the way, Biden’s not the first president with this spiteful mindset. Obama also said he wanted to raise the tax rate on capital gains even if the government didn’t get any more revenue. […]
[…] I offered a Laffer Curve lesson to President Obama, but I doubt it had any […]
[…] helps to explain why rich people paid five times as much tax to the IRS during the 1980s when Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] helps to explain why rich people paid five times as much tax to the IRS during the 1980s when Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] helps to explain why rich people paid five times as much tax to the IRS during the 1980s when Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] helps to explain why rich people paid five times as much tax to the IRS during the 1980s when Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] I offered a Laffer Curve lesson to President Obama, but I doubt it had any […]
[…] We conducted a very successful experiment in the 1980sinvolving lower tax rates. Biden now wants to see what happens if we try the opposite […]
[…] We conducted a very successful experiment in the 1980s involving lower tax rates. Biden now wants to see what happens if we try the opposite […]
[…] helps to explain why rich people paid five times as much tax to the IRS during the 1980s when Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] helps to explain why rich people paid five times as much tax to the IRS during the 1980s when Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] helps to explain why rich people paid five times as much tax to the IRS during the 1980s when Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] I offered a Laffer Curve lesson to President Obama, but I doubt it had any […]
[…] I’ve previously written, this was the Laffer Curve on steroids. Even when you consider other factors (population growth, inflation, other reforms, etc), there’s […]
[…] helps to explain why rich people paid five times as much tax to the IRS during the 1980s when Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] I offered a Laffer Curve lesson to President Obama, but I doubt it had any […]
[…] I offered a Laffer Curve lesson to President Obama, but I doubt it had any […]
[…] helps to explain why rich people paid five times as much tax to the IRS during the 1980s when Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] helps to explain why rich people paid five times as much tax to the IRS during the 1980s when Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] I offered a Laffer Curve lesson to President Obama, but I doubt it had any […]
[…] I’ve previously written, this was the Laffer Curve on steroids. Even when you consider other factors (population growth, inflation, other reforms, etc), there’s […]
[…] I’ve previously written, this was the Laffer Curve on steroids. Even when you consider other factors (population growth, inflation, other reforms, etc), there’s […]
[…] I’ve previously written, this was the Laffer Curve on steroids. Even when you consider other factors (population growth, inflation, other reforms, etc), […]
[…] helps to explain why rich people paid five times as much tax to the IRS during the 1980s when Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] I offered a Laffer Curve lesson to President Obama, but I doubt it had any […]
[…] helps to explain why rich people paid five times as much tax to the IRS during the 1980s when Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] helps to explain why rich people paid five times as much tax to the IRS during the 1980s when Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] helps to explain why rich people paid five times as much tax to the IRS during the 1980s when Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] My favorite example from that video, needless to say, is what happened during the Reagan years, when the rich paid much more to the IRS after their tax rates were slashed. […]
[…] My favorite example from that video, needless to say, is what happened during the Reagan years, when the rich paid much more to the IRS after their tax rates were slashed. […]
[…] A Lesson on the Laffer Curve for Barack Obama […]
[…] helps to explain why rich people paid five times as much tax to the IRS during the 1980s when Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] the changes he made led to very good results, even if folks on the left still refuse to believe the IRS data showing that Reagan’s lower tax rates on the rich generated more […]
[…] helps to explain why rich people paid five times as much tax to the IRS during the 1980s when Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] helps to explain why rich people paid five times as much tax to the IRS during the 1980s when Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] helps to explain why rich people paid five times as much tax to the IRS during the 1980s when Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] here’s the IRS data from 1980 and 1988 for taxpayers impacted by the highest tax rate. I’ve circled (in red) the relevant data […]
[…] helps to explain why rich people paid five times as much tax to the IRS during the 1980s when Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] helps to explain why rich people paid five times as much tax to the IRS during the 1980s when Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] helps to explain why rich people paid five times as much tax to the IRS during the 1980s when Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] helps to explain why rich people paid five times as much tax to the IRS during the 1980s when Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] P.P.S. It’s also worth remembering that higher tax rates on the rich don’t necessarily lead to higher tax revenues. […]
[…] I offered a Laffer Curve lesson to President Obama, but I doubt it had any […]
[…] about Reagan’s policies, I can’t resist pointing out that his policies resulted in big increases in tax revenue from upper-income taxpayers (in other words, powerful evidence of the Laffer […]
[…] helps to explain why rich people paid five times as much tax to the IRS during the 1980s when Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] helps to explain why rich people paid five times as much tax to the IRS during the 1980s when Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] helps to explain why rich people paid five times as much tax to the IRS during the 1980s when Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] helps to explain why rich people paid five times as much tax to the IRS during the 1980s when Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] helps to explain why rich people paid five times as much tax to the IRS during the 1980s when Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] helps to explain why rich people paid five times as much tax to the IRS during the 1980s when Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] P.P.S. It’s also worth remembering that higher tax rates on the rich don’t necessarily lead to higher tax revenues. […]
[…] P.P.S. It’s also worth remembering that higher tax rates on the rich don’t necessarily lead to higher tax revenues. […]
[…] A Lesson on the Laffer Curve for Barack Obama […]
[…] here’s the IRS data from 1980 and 1988 for taxpayers impacted by the highest tax rate. I’ve circled (in red) the relevant data […]
[…] here’s the IRS data from 1980 and 1988 for taxpayers impacted by the highest tax rate. I’ve circled (in red) the relevant data […]
[…] here’s the IRS data from 1980 and 1988 for taxpayers impacted by the highest tax rate. I’ve circled (in red) the relevant data […]
[…] here’s the IRS data from 1980 and 1988 for taxpayers impacted by the highest tax rate. I’ve circled (in red) the relevant data […]
[…] here’s the IRS data from 1980 and 1988 for taxpayers impacted by the highest tax rate. I’ve circled (in red) the relevant data […]
[…] perhaps combined with a bit of inflation fighting. And it’s definitely true that Reagan’s tax rate reductions and his restoration of sound money were wonderful […]
[…] combined with a bit of inflation fighting. And it’s definitely true that Reagan’s tax rate reductions and his restoration of sound money were wonderful […]
[…] the presentation, I shared the IRS data showing that the federal government collected fives times as much money from the rich after President Reagan reduced the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] income) down to 40 percent. Unsurprisingly, the rich paid more tax with lower rates, just as happened when Reagan lower the top tax […]
[…] especially worth noting that tax collections from the rich skyrocketed when Reagan slashed the top tax rate in the […]
[…] I think there’s very strong evidence that lower tax rates can increase revenue, I also think it doesn’t happen very […]
[…] That’s true in the United States, and it’s true in European countries such as Sweden, France, Russia, Denmark, and the United Kingdom. […]
[…] one of the big fiscal lessons of the 1980s is that punitive tax rates on upper-income taxpayers backfire because investors, entrepreneurs, and […]
[…] which would reverse the very successful experiment we had in the 1980s (and presumably have a reverse effect on revenue as […]
[…] Laffer Curve also is very important when looking at proposals (such as the nutty idea from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) to increase tax […]
[…] we know about the real-world impact of tax policy tells us that these soak-the-rich taxes won’t raise much – if any – revenue for the simple reason that upper-income taxpayers will alter the timing, level, and composition of […]
[…] plus, si l’on se fie à l’expérience américaine des années Reagan, on peut affirmer sans risque de se tromper que les recettes fiscales réelles seraient très, […]
[…] you don’t believe me, check out the IRS data on what happened in the 1980s when Reagan dropped the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent. […]
[…] And the changes he made led to very good results, even if folks on the left still refuse to believe the IRS data showing that Reagan’s lower tax rates on the rich generated more […]
[…] based on America’s experience during the Reagan years, it’s safe to say that actual tax receipts would fall far, far short of the […]
[…] some tax cuts do pay for themselves. But they tend to be tax cuts on people (such as investors and entrepreneurs) […]
[…] this debate. First, if the revenue-maximizing rate is 70 percent, then why did the IRS collect so much additional revenue from upper-income taxpayers when Reagan lowered the top rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] this debate. First, if the revenue-maximizing rate is 70 percent, then why did the IRS collect so much additional revenue from upper-income taxpayers when Reagan lowered the top rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] the latter. Which is why I worry that people learn the wrong lesson when I point out that the rich paid a lot more tax after Reagan lowered the top rate in the […]
[…] happens with income taxes. It happens with consumption […]
[…] lower tax rates did produce a windfall of tax revenue from the […]
[…] addressed the starve-the-beast issue, I’ll simply note that self-financing tax cuts (which do exist, though only in rare cases) are only possible if there’s a big uptick in growth and/or […]
[…] happens with income taxes. It happens with consumption […]
[…] since lower tax rates are only self-financing in very rare circumstances, I have no problem with the conclusion about lower […]
[…] Sort of the opposite of what happened in the 1980s, when lower rates resulted in more rich people and lots more taxable […]
[…] That being said, “more revenue than expected” is not the same as “more revenue.” The Laffer Curve simply says that good policy produced revenue feedback, not that tax cuts always pay for themselves (that only happens in rare circumstances). […]
[…] and offset a fall in revenues. However, as pointed out by Cato Institute economist Dan Mitchell, not all tax cuts pay for themselves. And this seems to be one of those cases: no matter how much the economy grows in the coming years, […]
[…] offset a fall in revenues. However, as identified by way of Cato Institute economist Dan Mitchell, now not all tax cuts pay for themselves. And this appears to be a type of circumstances: regardless of how a lot the economic system grows […]
[…] and offset a fall in revenues. However, as pointed out by Cato Institute economist Dan Mitchell, not all tax cuts pay for themselves. And this seems to be one of those cases: no matter how much the economy grows in the coming years, […]
[…] All these factors mean that there’s not a linear relationship between tax rates and tax revenue (a.k.a., the Laffer Curve). […]
[…] All these factors mean that there’s not a linear relationship between tax rates and tax revenue (a.k.a., the Laffer Curve). […]
[…] Maya said that tax cuts don’t pay for themselves. That’s true (except in rare circumstances), but it’s still very important to realize that supply-side tax cuts can produce some degree […]
[…] new GOP package won’t pay for itself. But his doctrinaire statement is belied by data from the United States, Canada, and United […]
[…] GOP package won’t pay for itself. But his doctrinaire statement is belied by data from the United States, Canada, and United […]
[…] And the same thing happens in reverse. If lower tax rates lead to a big enough increase in taxable income, the government actually collects more revenue – which is exactly what happened when the top tax rate was lowered in the 1980s. […]
[…] That’s true in the United States, and it’s true in European countries such as Sweden, France, Russia, Denmark, and the United Kingdom. […]
[…] true in the United States, and it’s true in European countries such as Sweden, France, Russia, Denmark, and the United […]
[…] part. Collecting revenue will be a much harder task, especially since Sanders wants to take the very successful experiment of the 1980s and run it in reverse. He also wants a big levy on banks (foreign financial institutions are […]
[…] enough and that the government will be starved of revenue. Yet they have no answer when I show them this IRS data. Or this data from the United Kingdom. Or this data from […]
[…] it hardly seems fair to subject them to even more onerous penalties. Especially since the IRS data from the 1980s suggest punitive rates could lead to less revenue rather than […]
[…] may not be as dramatic as what happened when Reagan reduced tax rates on investors, entrepreneurs, and other upper-income taxpayers in the […]
[…] may not be as dramatic as what happened when Reagan reduced tax rates on investors, entrepreneurs, and other upper-income taxpayers in the […]
[…] Check out the IRS data from the 1980s on what happened to tax revenue from the rich when Reagan dropped the top tax rate from 70 percent […]
[…] claim that tax cuts pay for themselves. That only happens in rare circumstances, usually involving taxpayers who have considerable control over the timing, level, and composition […]
[…] did the economy grow faster after Reagan lowered rates, but the IRS even collected more revenue (a lot more revenue) because rich people earned and reported so much additional […]
[…] isn’t enough to offset the revenue loss associated with lower tax rates. However, we do have very strong evidence that upper-income taxpayers actually paid more to the IRS because of the Reagan tax […]
[…] By the way, I fully agree we would get more growth if Trump’s tax plan was enacted. But the Laffer Curve doesn’t say that all tax cuts pay for themselves with faster growth. That only happens in rather rare circumstances. […]
[…] isn’t enough to offset the revenue loss associated with lower tax rates. However, we do have very strong evidence that upper-income taxpayers actually paid more to the IRS because of the Reagan tax […]
[…] isn’t enough to offset the revenue loss associated with lower tax rates. However, we do have very strong evidence that upper-income taxpayers actually paid more to the IRS because of the Reagan tax […]
[…] enacting legislation, that there would be substantial revenue feedback in the real world (the rich actually paid more, for instance, when Reagan dropped the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent). Politicians on […]
[…] By the way, I fully agree we would get more growth if Trump’s tax plan was enacted. But the Laffer Curve doesn’t say that all tax cuts pay for themselves with faster growth. That only happens in rather rare circumstances. […]
[…] He even admits that it causes big Laffer Curve effects, meaning governments actually lose revenue over time when tax rates are punitive. […]
[…] random. They happened because Reagan made big positive changes in policy. He tamed inflation. He slashed tax rates. He substantially reduced the burden of domestic spending. He curtailed red […]
[…] random. They happened because Reagan made big positive changes in policy. He tamed inflation. He slashed tax rates. He substantially reduced the burden of domestic spending. He curtailed red […]
You write above: “Folks on the right, however, should be careful about over-interpreting this data. There were lots of factors that presumably helped generate these results, including inflation, population growth, and some of Reagan’s other policies. So WE DON’T KNOW whether the lower tax rates on the rich caused revenues to double, triple, or quadruple (emphasis added). Ask five economists and you’ll get nine answers. But we do know that the rich paid much more when the tax rate was much lower.” I really enjoy your articles and the videos you presented. Where I am at a loss is with why you’re advocating a theory when there is NO evidence that the theory exists? What do you have to say about the “experiment” going on in Kansas under Governor Brownback?
[…] And the changes he made led to very good results, even if folks on the left still refuse to believe the IRS data showing that Reagan’s lower tax rates on the rich generated more […]
[…] reforms would deprive the Treasury of revenue and result in rich people paying a lot less tax. So I share IRS data on annual tax revenues from those making more than $200,000 per year to show that there was actually a big increase in […]
[…] reforms would deprive the Treasury of revenue and result in rich people paying a lot less tax. So I share IRS data on annual tax revenues from those making more than $200,000 per year to show that there was actually a big increase in […]
[…] the 1980s, for instance, upper-income taxpayers paid far more revenue to the government when Reagan lowered the top income tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] the 1980s, for instance, upper-income taxpayers paid far more revenue to the government when Reagan lowered the top income tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] the 1980s, for instance, upper-income taxpayers paid far more revenue to the government when Reagan lowered the top income tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] the 1980s, for instance, upper-income taxpayers paid far more revenue to the government when Reagan lowered the top income tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] the 1980s, for instance, upper-income taxpayers paid far more revenue to the government when Reagan lowered the top income tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] the 1980s, for instance, upper-income taxpayers paid far more revenue to the government when Reagan lowered the top income tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] for theoretical arguments (as the statistics are always affected by a multitude of factors), the data presented by Dan Mitchell here are quite convincing. We reproduce a table shown in his article […]
[…] for theoretical arguments (as the statistics are always affected by a multitude of factors), the data presented by Dan Mitchell here are quite convincing. We reproduce a table shown in his article […]
[…] for theoretical arguments (as the statistics are always affected by a multitude of factors), the data presented by Dan Mitchell here are quite convincing. We reproduce a table shown in his article […]
[…] portion of the Laffer Curve, either because tax rates are ridiculously high (the U.S. before Reagan) or because a nation is developing or transitioning and needs low tax burdens to boost growth and […]
[…] No, the lower corporate tax rate isn’t self financing. That only happens in rare circumstances. […]
[…] And if a left-leaning bureaucracy is now willing to admit that excessive taxation can lead to less revenue, maybe eventually the Republicans on Capitol Hill will install people at the Joint Committee on Taxation who also understand this elementary insight. […]
As this sort of points out, the real question is where are we actually at on the laffer curve. Another point to ponder is at what point is public spending restricted to a point where research and infrastructure spending are reduced below where they are best for the future economy. If you are lowering taxes today but restricting the future potential of the economy is that worth it?
[…] addressed the starve-the-beast issue, I’ll simply note that self-financing tax cuts (which do exist, though only in rare cases) are only possible if there’s a big uptick in growth and/or […]
[…] a few cases, it actually is possible for a tax cut to be self-financing. But in the vast majority of cases, the real issue is the degree […]
[…] and therefore more taxable income (i.e., the Laffer Curve). But it’s only in rare (albeit sometimes very noteworthy) cases that the increase in taxable income is sufficiently large to offset the impact of lower tax […]
[…] income tax rates is never a good idea, and there’s powerful evidence from the 1980s about how upper-income taxpayers have considerable ability to change their behavior in response to […]
[…] income tax rates is never a good idea, and there’s powerful evidence from the 1980s about how upper-income taxpayers have considerable ability to change their behavior in response to […]
[…] income tax rates is never a good idea, and there’s powerful evidence from the 1980s about how upper-income taxpayers have considerable ability to change their behavior in response to […]
[…] income tax rates is never a good idea, and there’s powerful evidence from the 1980s about how upper-income taxpayers have considerable ability to change their behavior in response […]
[…] income tax rates is never a good idea, and there’s powerful evidence from the 1980s about how upper-income taxpayers have considerable ability to change their behavior in response to […]
[…] Or the oft-repeated myth that the Reagan tax cuts for the rich starved the government of revenue. How can you have a rational discussion with people who don’t believe IRS data? […]
[…] In other words, one of the lessons of the Berkeley sugar tax and the 21-percent drop in consumption is that the Laffer Curve applies to so-called sin taxes just like it applies to income taxes. […]
Excuse me but your table makes no sense. in 1980 there were only 4,400 individuals who claimed income over $1M? And that number increased to 62,000 claiming income oveer $1M in 1988? Preposterous.
Further, if 4400 people claimed income over $1M, how is it possible that income in this group was only $7M? If 4400 people claimed income over $1M, at the VERY LEAST, the total income should be $4,400,000,000. Yes, that is $4.4B.
Or maybe it’s per capita. Maybe it was actually 4.4 million people who claimed income over $1M. Who can tell, this is so sloppily presented that even superficial analysis of it is impossible.
Maybe this is why liberals economists don’t get the Laffer Curve. Either it makes no sense or you are incapable of explaining it.
[…] ability to adjust their taxable income when tax rates climb and fall (which was one of the reasons rich people paid a lot more taxwhen Reagan dropped the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent). Also, the average tax rate is […]
[…] ability to adjust their taxable income when tax rates climb and fall (which was one of the reasons rich people paid a lot more tax when Reagan dropped the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent). Also, the average tax rate is […]
[…] On fiscal policy, for instance, there was a modest improvement in the “government consumption” score but a huge jump in the “top marginal tax rate” score. All of which makes sense because the burden of government spending (measured as a share of GDP) fell slightly during the Reagan years while the top tax rate dropped dramatically from 70 percent t0 28 percent. […]
[…] a huge difference between tax rates and tax revenue. If you don’t believe me, simply look at the IRS data from the 1980s, which shows that upper-income taxpayers paid far more to Uncle Sam at a 28 percent tax rate in […]
[…] if you want more detail, check out the IRS data from the 1980s, which shows that rich taxpayers paid a lot more tax when the top rate was dropped from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] influence economic performance need to explain why the celebrated Laffer Curve is wrong and why rich people paid five times as much tax after Reagan lowered the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent in the […]
[…] if you want more detail, check out the IRS data from the 1980s, which shows that rich taxpayers paid a lot more tax when the top rate was dropped from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] when Reagan’s reforms lowered the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent. Rich people paid five times as much to the IRS, in large part because they declared 10 times as much […]
[…] the value of dynamic scoring, I challenge them to come up with an alternative explanation for why rich people paid five times as much tax after Reagan lowered the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent in the […]
[…] Here’s my as-yet-unheeded Laffer Curve lesson for President Obama, based on the fact that rich taxpayers paid five times as much tax after Reagan reduced the top tax […]
[…] Here’s my as-yet-unheeded Laffer Curve lesson for President Obama, based on the fact that rich taxpayers paid five times as much tax after Reagan reduced the top tax […]
[…] La présidence de Ronald Reagan a vu le même phénomène. Avant son arrivée au pouvoir, le taux d’imposition le plus élevé était de 70 %, contre 28 % lorsqu’il quitta le pouvoir. Seulement sur les revenus des riches, le fisc américain a prélevé cinq fois plus d’impôts après que les taux aient été abaissés. Bien sûr, à la même époque il y avait de l’inflation, la population augmentait, etc. Mais quand même… cinq fois ! […]
[…] the tax cuts in Israel has a bigger Laffer-Curve effect than the tax cuts in the United States, the IRS data clearly shows that Reagan’s lower tax rates led to more revenue from the […]
[…] the tax cuts in Israel has a bigger Laffer-Curve effect than the tax cuts in the United States, the IRS data clearly shows that Reagan’s lower tax rates led to more revenue from the […]
[…] But if that’s the case, instead of teaching Sanders a lesson from JFK, then he needs to learn a lesson from Ronald Reagan. […]
[…] if you somehow assume that huge tax hikes don’t have negative effects on taxable income (and the evidence from the 1980s shows that upper-income taxpayers have very strong responses to changes in tax […]
[…] if you somehow assume that huge tax hikes don’t have negative effects on taxable income (and the evidence from the 1980s shows that upper-income taxpayers have very strong responses to changes in tax […]
[…] you somehow assume that huge tax hikes don’t have negative effects on taxable income (and the evidence from the 1980s shows that upper-income taxpayers have very strong responses to changes in tax […]
The Laffer curve as it applies to taxation is much more complex that the way it applies to a business trying to maximize revenue. First, you should completely understand the business application before applying it to taxation.
[…] Reagan tax rate reductions and tax reform were only possible because of several years of work by supply-side heroes who focused on the […]
[…] for themselves? Sound like a controversial proposition, but that’s exactly what happened with some of the tax rate reductions of the Reagan […]
[…] the lower tax rates on upper-income taxpayers did lead to huge increases in taxable income and big increases in tax revenue, so there are a few examples where lower tax rates “pay for […]
[…] easy steps to protect themselves when they’re targeted by government, but they’re willing to earn and report a lot more income when they’re not being […]
[…] easy steps to protect themselves when they’re targeted by government, but they’re willing to earn and report a lot more income when they’re not being […]
[…] steps to protect themselves when they’re targeted by government, but they’re willing to earn and report a lot more income when they’re not being […]
[…] Kemp was a hero in the battle to lower confiscatory tax rates, leading to a victory that was enormously successful in the 1980s. And Ryan deserves endless praise for his efforts to reform entitlement programs such as Medicare […]
[…] tax, to cite a couple of examples, might increase revenue in the long run. And we definitely saw a huge response when Reagan lowered top tax rates in the 1980s. But other tax cuts, such as expanded child credits, […]
[…] I’ve already shared incredibly powerful data from the IRS on this occurring during the 1980s in the United States, so it’s no surprise it happened in […]
[…] This is my favorite bit of real-world evidence showing why there should be low tax rates on the rich (in addition, of course, to low tax rates on […]
[…] This is my favorite bit of real-world evidence showing why there should be low tax rates on the rich (in addition, of course, to low tax rates on […]
[…] Shifting back to the original topic of class-warfare taxation, here’s a lesson on the Laffer Curve I offered to President […]
[…] Shifting back to the original topic of class-warfare taxation, here’s a lesson on the Laffer Curve I offered to President […]
[…] helps to explain why Washington is so often wrong about revenue implications of personal tax rates and corporate tax […]
[…] and there’s lots of evidence that a lower corporate rate will generate more revenue. Which is precisely what happened when personal tax rates were reduced on the “rich” in the […]
[…] If you want class-warfare tax rates on the rich, keep in mind that high rates don’t necessarily translate into more revenue. […]
[…] If you want class-warfare tax rates on the rich, keep in mind that high rates don’t necessarily translate into more revenue. […]
[…] familiar with the evidence from the 1980s about the sometimes-inverse link between tax rates and tax revenue and they are aware that […]
[…] argue that the revenue-maximizing rate is up around 70 percent, which is grossly inconsistent with the evidence from the 1980s, but at least they understand that successful taxpayers can and do respond when tax rates […]
[…] made this point before when dealing with personal income tax rates, corporate tax rates, capital gains taxes, and tobacco […]
[…] made this point before when dealing with personal income tax rates, corporate tax rates, capital gains taxes, and tobacco […]
[…] if you like videos, I have a three-part series on the Laffer Curve which is part of this post offering a lesson from the 1980s for Barack […]
[…] the way, the United States conducted an experiment of this type in the 1980s and the rich wound up declaring far more income to the […]
[…] his only accomplishment was ending malaise and restoring American prosperity thanks to lower tax rates and other pro-market reforms, he would be a great […]
[…] huge increase in taxes paid by upper-income taxpayers after Reagan slashed the top income tax […]
[…] huge increase in taxes paid by upper-income taxpayers after Reagan slashed the top income tax […]
[…] P.S. If you don’t believe my argument about rich people having the ability to alter their taxable income, check out the IRS data from the 1980s. […]
[…] P.S. If you don’t believe my argument about rich people having the ability to alter their taxable income, check out the IRS data from the 1980s. […]
[…] While tax cuts usually do lead to revenue losses, there is at least one very prominent case of lower tax rates leading to more […]
[…] I offered a Laffer Curve lesson to President Obama, but I doubt it had any […]
[…] Check out the IRS data from the 1980s on what happened to tax revenue from the rich when Reagan dropped the top tax rate from 70 percent […]
[…] it common sense. Since Amity’s book covered the data from the 1920s, I shared with the audience some amazing data from the 1980s showing that lower tax rates on the “rich” led to big revenue […]
[…] for prosperity than higher tax rates. Perhaps that’s because the overwhelming evidence of lower tax rates on the rich leading to higher revenue was fresh in their […]
[…] A Lesson on the Laffer Curve for Barack Obama […]
[…] Fortunately, Reagan did not accept the left’s distorted rules and we got the Economic Recovery Tax Act in 1981, which helped trigger the 1980s boom. […]
[…] and Investment: Ever since Reagan slashed tax rates in the 1980s, the most anti-growth feature of the tax code is probably the pervasive double […]
[…] Sans surprise, quand les Etats-Unis ont réalisé une expérience de ce type dans les années 1980, les bas taux d’imposition ont fait exploser les revenus déclarés au fisc… […]
[…] the way, the United States conducted an experiment of this type in the 1980s and the rich wound up declaring far more income to the […]
[…] the way, the United States conducted an experiment of this type in the 1980s and the rich wound up declaring far more income to the […]
[…] An excellent job, and I particularly like the data showing that the rich paid more to the IRS following Reagan’s tax cuts. […]
[…] An excellent job, and I particularly like the data showing that the rich paid more to the IRS following Reagan’s tax cuts. […]
[…] interesting to show leftists the IRS data from the 1980s, which unambiguously demonstrates that rich people paid more tax after Reagan dramatically lowered the top rate, and then see how they would answer the same […]
[…] P.S. The strongest single piece of evidence for the Laffer Curve is what happened to tax collections from the rich in the 1980s. The top tax rate dropped from 70 percent to 28 percent, leading many statists to complain that the wealthy wouldn’t pay enough and that the government would be starved of revenue. To put it mildly, they were wildly wrong. […]
[…] My favorite example from that video, needless to say, is what happened during the Reagan years, when the rich paid much more to the IRS after their tax rates were slashed. […]
[…] Using IRS tax data, I’ve shown that this is a very inaccurate assumption. And I’ve also used IRS data to show the President that there are big Laffer-Curve effects when you try to rape and pillage high-income Americans. […]
[…] My favorite example from that video, needless to say, is what happened during the Reagan years, when the rich paid much more to the IRS after their tax rates were slashed. […]
[…] to be effective. People are always shocked, for example, when I show them the IRS numbers on how rich people paid a lot more tax when Reagan cut the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] to be effective. People are always shocked, for example, when I show them the IRS numbers on how rich people paid a lot more tax when Reagan cut the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] My favorite example from that video, needless to say, is what happened during the Reagan years, when the rich paid much more to the IRS after their tax rates were slashed. […]
[…] I offered a Laffer Curve lesson to President Obama, but I doubt it had any […]
[…] I offered a Laffer Curve lesson to President Obama, but I doubt it had any […]
[…] And the same thing happens in reverse. If lower tax rates lead to a big enough increase in taxable income, the government actually collects more revenue – which is exactly what happened when the top tax rate was lowered in the 1980s. […]
[…] get most of their compensation in the form of business profits and investment returns, and this gives them substantial control over the timing, level, and composition of their income. So it’s quite understandable that their taxable income is quite sensitive to changes in tax […]
Christopher Burd’s statistics about GDP growth under Reagan seem to be contradicted somewhat by this from the Heritage Foundation. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/03/the-real-reagan-economic-record
[…] A Lesson on the Laffer Curve for Barack Obama […]
[…] it common sense. Since Amity’s book covered the data from the 1920s, I shared with the audience some amazing data from the 1980s showing that lower tax rates on the “rich” led to big revenue […]
[…] common sense. Since Amity’s book covered the data from the 1920s, I shared with the audience some amazing data from the 1980s showing that lower tax rates on the “rich” led to big revenue […]
[…] And if you want to learn specifically why Obama’s class-warfare agenda is misguided, here’s my Laffer-Curve-lesson-for-Obama post. […]
[…] By the way, you can see that Allister makes a reference to tax rates being reduced for top earners. That’s largely because many politicians learned an important lesson about the Laffer Curve. Sometimes, the best way to “soak the rich” is by lowering their tax rates. Unfortunately, President Obama still needs some remedial education on this topic. […]
[…] Last but not least, allow me to call your attention to my effort to give the President a remedial lesson about class warfare and the Laffer Curve. […]
[…] I’ve pulled evidence from IRS publications to show that rich people paid a lot more to Uncle Sam after Reagan reduced the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28…. […]
[…] Art Laffer has a guaranteed spot in the liberty hall of fame because he popularized the common-sense notion that you can’t make any assumptions about tax rates and tax revenue without also figuring out what happens to taxable income. […]
[…] Art Laffer has a guaranteed spot in the liberty hall of fame because he popularized the common-sense notion that you can’t make any assumptions about tax rates and tax revenue without also figuring out what happens to taxable income. […]
[…] I’ve pulled evidence from IRS publications to show that rich people paid a lot more to Uncle Sam after Reagan reduced the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28…. […]
[…] Art Laffer has a guaranteed spot in the liberty hall of fame because he popularized the common-sense notion that you can’t make any assumptions about tax rates and tax revenue without also figuring out what happens to taxable income. […]
[…] Last but not least, allow me to call your attention to my effort to give the President a remedial lesson about class warfare and the Laffer Curve. […]
[…] shared evidence from around the world (England, Italy, the United States, and France) and from various states (Illinois, Oregon, Florida,Maryland, and New York) to […]
[…] My favorite example from that video, needless to say, is what happened during the Reagan years, when the rich paid much more to the IRS after their tax rates were slashed. […]
[…] My favorite example from that video, needless to say, is what happened during the Reagan years, when the rich paid much more to the IRS after their tax rates were slashed. […]
[…] saw in America that rich people paid a lot more to the IRS when Reagan lowered their tax rates in the […]
[…] But it’s not just that the Gipper had good rhetoric. He also did a decent job of restraining spending and he significantly lowered marginal tax rates. […]
[…] Using IRS tax data, I’ve shown that this is a very inaccurate assumption. And I’ve also used IRS data to show the President that there are big Laffer-Curve effects when you try to rape and pillage high-income Americans. […]
[…] But it’s not just that the Gipper had good rhetoric. He also did a decent job of restraining spending and he significantly lowered marginal tax rates. […]
[…] Sadly, Barack Obama seems to have a hard time grasping the relationship between tax rates, taxable income, and tax revenue – even though I prepared a simple lesson to help him understand the that there’s not a simplistic linear relationship. […]
[…] if you want to watch the full three-part series, they’re all included in this Laffer Curve lesson that I put together for the President. He seems oblivious to real-world evidence, but others may find the information […]
[…] shared evidence from around the world (England, Italy, the United States, and France) and from various states (Illinois, Oregon, Florida,Maryland, and New York) to […]
[…] my second soundbite, I make a simple point about the Laffer Curve. As we saw in the 1980s, lower tax rates don’t automatically mean lower tax […]
[…] Hannan understands that rich people have considerable control over the timing, level, and composition of their income, which is precisely why there are powerful Laffer Curve effects when politicians go after the so-called rich (as I tried to explain in a lesson for President Obama). […]
[…] class warfare tax policy, and I’ve explained that higher tax rates on the rich will cause bad Laffer Curve effects because investors, entrepreneurs, and small business owners have considerable ability to change the […]
[…] if you want to watch the full three-part series, they’re all included in this Laffer Curve lesson that I put together for the President. He seems oblivious to real-world evidence, but others may find the information […]
[…] since we know that rich people respond to high tax rates by declaring less income to the government, we shouldn’t be surprised that poor people also […]
[…] there’s a lesson there for Obama. But I’ve already tried to educate our taxer-in-chief about these issues, so I doubt this new evidence from France will make any […]
[…] The class-warfare crowd is opposed to the flat tax for ideological reasons. They want high tax rates and punitive double taxation – even if the government winds up collecting less money. […]
[…] This next cartoon also is funny because there’s an element of truth. There’s always a temptation to exaggerate the bad things that supposedly will happen if one’s opponents succeed. Democrats, for instance, look silly for saying the Reagan tax cuts for the “rich” would starve the government of revenue when we now know the rich paid far more when the top tax rate fell from 70 percent to 28 percent. […]
[…] proposal won't generate as much revenue as projected. Surely they are familiar with the evidence from the 1980s, and they must know that upper-income people have considerable control over the timing, level, and […]
[…] a similar experiment in the 1980s, except we lowered tax rates instead of raising them. And as you can see in this “lesson” post I wrote for the President, we got the same results as the United Kingdom, except in reverse. More rich people, more taxable […]
[…] a thoughtful and kind person, I offered some advice last year to Barack Obama. I cited some powerful IRS data from the 1980s to demonstrate that there is not a simplistic linear relationship between tax rates and tax […]
[…] a thoughtful and kind person, I offered some advice last year to Barack Obama. I cited some powerful IRS data from the 1980s to demonstrate that there is not a simplistic linear relationship between tax rates and tax […]
[…] a thoughtful and kind person, I offered some advice last year to Barack Obama. I cited some powerful IRS data from the 1980s to demonstrate that there is not a simplistic linear relationship between tax rates and tax […]
[…] a thoughtful and kind person, I offered some advice last year to Barack Obama. I cited some powerful IRS data from the 1980s to demonstrate that there is not a simplistic linear relationship between tax rates and tax […]
[…] a thoughtful and kind person, I offered some advice last year to Barack Obama. I cited some powerful IRS data from the 1980s to demonstrate that there is not a simplistic linear relationship between tax rates and tax […]
[…] a thoughtful and kind person, I offered some advice last year to Barack Obama. I cited some powerful IRS data from the 1980s to demonstrate that there is not a simplistic linear relationship between tax rates and tax […]
[…] a thoughtful and kind person, I offered some advice last year to Barack Obama. I cited some powerful IRS data from the 1980s to demonstrate that there is not a simplistic linear relationship between tax rates and tax […]
[…] If you don’t believe me, look at this incredible data showing how the rich paid for more money after Reagan slashed their tax rates. […]
[…] ability to change the timing, composition, and level of their income, which is a big reason why upper-income taxpayers paid much more to the IRS in the 1980s after President Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] I’ve pulled evidence from IRS publications to show that rich people paid a lot more to Uncle Sam after Reagan reduced the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28…. […]
[…] 2. There aren’t enough rich people to fund big government – The video explains that stealing every penny from every millionaire would run the federal government for only three months. And it also makes the very wise observation that this would be a one-time bit of pillaging since rich people would quickly learn not to earn and report so much income. We learned in the 1980s that the best way to soak the rich is by putting a stop to confiscatory tax rates. […]
[…] By the way, you can see that Allister makes a reference to tax rates being reduced for top earners. That’s largely because many politicians learned an important lesson about theLaffer Curve. Sometimes, the best way to “soak the rich” is by lowering their tax rates. Unfortunately, President Obama still needs some remedial education on this topic. […]
[…] 2. There aren’t enough rich people to fund big government – The video explains that stealing every penny from every millionaire would run the federal government for only three months. And it also makes the very wise observation that this would be a one-time bit of pillaging since rich people would quickly learn not to earn and report so much income. We learned in the 1980s that the best way to soak the rich is by putting a stop to confiscatory tax rates. […]
[…] By the way, you can see that Allister makes a reference to tax rates being reduced for top earners. That’s largely because many politicians learned an important lesson about the Laffer Curve. Sometimes, the best way to “soak the rich” is by lowering their tax rates. Unfortunately, President Obama still needs some remedial education on this topic. […]
[…] In some cases, that means providing information and analysis to those already sympathetic to limited government. There are many people who like the idea of lower tax burdens, for instance, but they may not have given much thought to the interaction of tax rates, taxable income, and tax revenue, so that’s why I put together my Laffer Curve tutorial and why I wrote about this amazing data from the Reagan tax cuts. […]
[…] By the way, you can see that Allister makes a reference to tax rates being reduced for top earners. That’s largely because many politicians learned an important lesson about the Laffer Curve. Sometimes, the best way to “soak the rich” is by lowering their tax rates. Unfortunately, President Obama still needs some remedial education on this topic. […]
[…] Last but not least, allow me to call your attention to my effort to give the President a remedial lesson about class warfare and the Laffer Curve. […]
[…] In some cases, that means providing information and analysis to those already sympathetic to limited government. There are many people who like the idea of lower tax burdens, for instance, but they may not have given much thought to the interaction of tax rates, taxable income, and tax revenue, so that’s why I put together my Laffer Curve tutorial and why I wrote about this amazing data from the Reagan tax cuts. […]
[…] townhall.com October 4, 2012 I’ve shared evidence from around the world (England, Italy, the United States, and France) and from various states (Illinois, Oregon, Florida,Maryland, and New York) to argue […]
[…] ability to change the timing, composition, and level of their income, which is a big reason why upper-income taxpayers paid much more to the IRS in the 1980s after President Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] pulled evidence from IRS publications to show that rich people paid a lot more to Uncle Sam after Reagan reduced the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28…. The good ol’ […]
[…] pulled evidence from IRS publications to show that rich people paid a lot more to Uncle Sam after Reagan reduced the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28…. The good ol’ […]
[…] I’ve pulled evidence from IRS publications to show that rich people paid a lot more to Uncle Sam after Reagan reduced the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28…. […]
[…] I’ve pulled evidence from IRS publications to show that rich people paid a lot more to Uncle Sam after Reagan reduced the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28…. […]
[…] pulled evidence from IRS publications to show that rich people paid a lot more to Uncle Sam after Reagan reduced the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28…. The good ol’ […]
[…] my second soundbite, I make a simple point about the Laffer Curve. As we saw in the 1980s, lower tax rates don’t automatically mean lower tax […]
[…] for Obama and others to think it is easy to squeeze more money from rich taxpayers, and I’ve also provided evidence from the 1980s to show that upper-income people have considerable ability to respond to changes in tax rates by […]
[…] column also makes the critical point that not all taxes are created equal. …higher VAT is also damaging growth, though it is still yielding more. Some taxes can still […]
[…] When tax rates change, sometimes people choose to alter their levels of work, saving, and investment. […]
[…] But while voters can impose higher taxes, they can’t repeal the laws of economics. So if California voters do the wrong thing, they will learn a hard lesson about the Laffer Curve. […]
[…] to change the timing, composition, and level of their income, which is a big reason why upper-income taxpayers paid much more to the IRS in the 1980s after President Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] ability to change the timing, composition, and level of their income, which is a big reason why upper-income taxpayers paid much more to the IRS in the 1980s after President Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] ability to change the timing, composition, and level of their income, which is a big reason why upper-income taxpayers paid much more to the IRS in the 1980s after President Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] ability to change the timing, composition, and level of their income, which is a big reason why upper-income taxpayers paid much more to the IRS in the 1980s after President Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] The Laffer Curve is a graphical representation of the relationship between tax rates, tax revenue, and taxable income. It is frequently cited by people who want to explain the common-sense notion that punitive tax rates may not generate much additional revenue if people respond in ways that result in…. […]
[…] want the rich to pay more? Dan Mitchell observed:I explained that “rich” taxpayers declared much more income and paid much higher taxes after Reagan reduced the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] The Laffer Curve is a graphical representation of the relationship between tax rates, tax revenue, and taxable income. It is frequently cited by people who want to explain the common-sense notion that punitive tax rates may not generate much additional revenue if people respond in ways that result in…. […]
[…] And the same thing happens in reverse. If lower tax rates lead to a big enough increase in taxable income, the government actually collects more revenue – which is exactly what happened when the top tax rate was lowered in the 1980s. […]
[…] Allister’s column also makes the critical point that not all taxes are created equal. […]
[…] column also makes the critical point that not all taxes are created equal. …higher VAT is also damaging growth, though it is still yielding more. Some taxes can still […]
[…] column also makes the critical point that not all taxes are created equal. …higher VAT is also damaging growth, though it is still yielding more. Some taxes can still […]
[…] column also makes the critical point that not all taxes are created equal. …higher VAT is also damaging growth, though it is still yielding more. Some taxes can still […]
[…] But while voters can impose higher taxes, they can’t repeal the laws of economics. So if California voters do the wrong thing, they will learn a hard lesson about the Laffer Curve. […]
[…] then provide a specific example, looking at how Reagan’s lower tax rates resulted in a lot more revenue from the rich. Unlike the rest of us, the rich have a great ability to alter the timing, amount and composition […]
[…] big enough increase in taxable income, the government actually collects more revenue – which is exactly what happened when the top tax rate was lowered in the 1980s. I’ve also tried to explain, shifting from economics to philosophy, that confiscatory tax rates […]
[…] big enough increase in taxable income, the government actually collects more revenue – which is exactly what happened when the top tax rate was lowered in the 1980s. I’ve also tried to explain, shifting from economics to philosophy, that confiscatory tax rates […]
[…] big enough increase in taxable income, the government actually collects more revenue – which is exactly what happened when the top tax rate was lowered in the 1980s. I’ve also tried to explain, shifting from economics to philosophy, that confiscatory tax rates […]
[…] But while voters can impose higher taxes, they can’t repeal the laws of economics. So if California voters do the wrong thing, they will learn a hard lesson about the Laffer Curve. […]
[…] for Obama and others to think it is easy to squeeze more money from rich taxpayers, and I’ve also provided evidence from the 1980s to show that upper-income people have considerable ability to respond to changes in tax rates by […]
[…] Obama and others to think it is easy to squeeze more money from rich taxpayers, and I’ve also provided evidence from the 1980s to show that upper-income people have considerable ability to respond to changes in tax rates by […]
[…] already written about the experiment America conducted in the 1980s, when Reagan lowered the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent. Hollande wants to conduct a similar experiment, but in […]
[…] already written about the experiment America conducted in the 1980s, when Reagan lowered the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent. Hollande wants to conduct a similar experiment, but in […]
[…] tax hikes, for instance, might pull in some extra loot for the political class to redistribute. But is it a good idea to give the politicians more money if the economy loses $5 of private output for every $1 of added tax […]
[…] …Forget that silly flat tax: it’s about lower tax RATES…as you lower tax rates, revenues and productivity jump…at this review article, see body for useful youtubes as well: https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/11/06/a-lesson-on-the-laffer-curve-for-barack-obama/ […]
[…] For what it’s worth, this is why Obama’s proposed tax increases won’t raise nearly as much money as projected. […]
[…] want the rich to pay more? Dan Mitchell observed:I explained that “rich” taxpayers declared much more income and paid much higher taxes after Reagan reduced the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] then provide a specific example, looking at how Reagan’s lower tax rates resulted in a lot more revenue from the rich. Unlike the rest of us, the rich have a great ability to alter the timing, amount and composition […]
[…] then provide a specific example, looking at how Reagan’s lower tax rates resulted in a lot more revenue from the rich. Unlike the rest of us, the rich have a great ability to alter the timing, amount and composition […]
[…] most effective moment (I think) was when I explained that “rich” taxpayers declared much more income and paid much higher taxes after Reagan reduced the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
[…] The Laffer Curve is a graphical representation of the relationship between tax rates, tax revenue, and taxable income. It is frequently cited by people who want to explain the common-sense notion that punitive tax rates may not generate much additional revenue if people respond in ways that result in…. […]
[…] The Laffer Curve is a graphical representation of the relationship between tax rates, tax revenue, and taxable income. It is frequently cited by people who want to explain the common-sense notion that punitive tax rates may not generate much additional revenue if people respond in ways that result in…. […]
[…] When tax rates change, sometimes they choose to alter their levels of work, saving, and investment. […]
[…] 5. If you want the rich to pay more tax, keep tax rates reasonable. […]
[…] all the talk about budgets in Washington, and given Obama’s support for class warfare, higher tax rates, and double taxation, this image I received seems rather […]
[…] And the same thing happens in reverse. If lower tax rates lead to a big enough increase in taxable income, the government actually collects more revenue – which is exactly what happened when the top tax rate was lowered in the 1980s. […]
[…] And the same thing happens in reverse. If lower tax rates lead to a big enough increase in taxable income, the government actually collects more revenue – which is exactly what happened when the top tax rate was lowered in the 1980s. […]
[…] That’s why I wrote about the U.S.-specific evidence from the 1980s, which shows that rich people paid much more to the IRS when tax rates were slashed from 70 percent to 28 percent. […]
[…] though there is a wealth of evidence for the Laffer Curve, statists and other big-government advocates routinely claim that incentives don’t […]
[…] Think about that! More than 5 times as much tax REVENUE at a tax RATE of LESS THAN HALF! Just more proof that all these attacks on Millionaires/Billionaires when based on the abstracts of tax RATE are based on little more than smoke bombs in the misguided, unethical, highly immoral Class War! LINK […]
[…] When tax rates change, sometimes they choose to alter their levels of work, saving, and investment. […]
@KYT Not just tax collected per return as a percentage but also on absolute terms. The average income in that group went from $932K in 1980 to over $2 million in 1988, but the average tax paid per return dropped from $155K to $132K.
Interesting post but the liberals are going to rip you a new one (or should if they knew what they were doing) for comparing unadjusted 1980 and 1988 numbers. It really is apples and oranges.
There were many more rich people in 1988, and your own chart shows the tax collected PER RETURN is lower. Not good. Just more data showing that the rich are shifting the burden of taxation to the middle class, under both Democrats and Republicans.
[…] little economics lesson for a Tuesday morning: The Laffer Curve, and a double dose of Milton Friedman: 10 of his best economic quotes and the original “Greed […]
[…] When tax rates change, sometimes they choose to alter their levels of work, saving, and investment. […]
[…] When tax rates change, sometimes they choose to alter their levels of work, saving, and investment. […]
[…] When tax rates change, sometimes they choose to alter their levels of work, saving, and investment. […]
[…] Here’s the data on the Laffer Curve in the 1980s. […]
[…] Here’s the data on the Laffer Curve in the 1980s. […]
[…] video is part of a three-part series, by the way. Click here if you want to see the entire set. Rate this: Share […]
[…] to the video, beginning around 6:35, I debunk the President’s class-warfare tax agenda by citing IRS data from the 1980s to explain that higher tax rates don’t necessarily mean higher tax […]
[…] to the video, beginning around 6:35, I debunk the President’s class-warfare tax agenda by citing IRS data from the 1980s to explain that higher tax rates don’t necessarily mean higher tax […]
[…] changes can be enormous, as demonstrated in this post showing how rich people paid five times as much federal income tax after Reagan cut the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 […]
Actually, I think I do understand the Laffer Curve. The same way I understood it before.
What I don’t understand is the claimed effect that on taxable income, there seems to be none.
Tax rate DROPS 59 percent (the inverse of 1.71 — i.e., 1 / 1.71 = .59); the ratio of taxes paid as a percentage of taxable income GROWS 71% ((1 + .71 = 1.71 — i.e., the inverse of .59))
In other words, as the tax rate drops; there is an inversely proportional INCREASE in the amount of tax revenue as a percentage of taxable income. Just what the Laffer Curve (as I had PREVIOUSLY understood it) predicts.
Um,
38.5 / 134.65 = 28.6% —- i.e., the 28% tax rate reported.
11.1 / 22.7 = 48.9% —– i.e., NOT the 70% tax rate reported.
I don’t understand how the Laffer Curve or the amount of taxable income changes the rate of taxation OF that taxable income from 70% to 49%.
The change in tax RATE was 1.71 times. ((48.9% / 28.6%))
The the tax paid increased 3.47 times ((38.5 / 11.1 = 3.46))
The taxable income increased 5.93 times ((134.65 / 22.7))
The RATIO (or rate) of increase in taxable income to increase in tax paid was 1.71 ((5.93 / 3.47 = 1.71)); exactly the change in the tax rate.
I don’t understand how the Laffer Curve works anymore.
[…] liberals are not just hypocrites, but wrong as well, read this post from economist Daniel Mitchell that tries to teach President Obama about the Laffer Curve. GA_googleAddAttr("AdOpt", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Origin", "other"); […]
Sorry to come late to party. I’m not in favour of high taxes – largely because I’m not in favour of a large state – but I’m not convinced by the Laffer argument as put forward here.
Laffer’s idea comes in two flavours, it seems to me. The soft version holds that high tax rates encourage the rich to hide income or otherwise avoid taxation, and that lowering tax rates while closing off loopholes, etc. can lead the rich to declare more income. That is undoubtedly sometimes true, and may be a partial explanation of what happened in the Reagan years.
The hard version holds (1) that high taxes can suppress growth, (2) that lowering tax rates can stimulate sufficient extra growth to offset the lower rates, and (3) this is actually what happened in the United States in the Reagan period and after.
Well, did it?
Here’s real US GDP growth (5 yr averages) versus the marginal income tax rates, since 1970.
1970-74 – 3.5% – 70%
1975-79 – 4.7% – 70%
1980-84 – 3.0% – 70%
1985-89 – 3.6% – 50%
1990-94 – 2.5% – 28%
1995-99 – 4.3% – 40%
2000-04 – 2.2% – 36%
2005-09 – 0.2% – 33%
There’s very little evidence for the Laffer thesis. For one thing, growth did not increase! There was an upward blip in the late 80s (after the first tax cuts), but a bigger increase in the 90s after Clinton raised the margin rate. Bush’s tax cuts produced nothing we can see in these statistics.
The miserable truth is that growth has steadily fallen for decades, regardless of tax rates. I have my guesses on why this happened, and I don’t think Dr Laffer has much to contribute to the debate, although Dr Hayek certainly does.
Sources:
http://www.measuringworth.com/index.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States
[…] It goes without saying (but I’ll say it anyhow) that it would be even better to combine Clinton’s spending levels with Reagan’s tax rates. […]
[…] say it anyhow) that it would be even better to combine Clinton’s spending levels with Reagan’s tax rates. jQuery('#lazyload_post_0 img').lazyload({placeholder: […]
[…] say it anyhow) that it would be even better to combine Clinton’s spending levels with Reagan’s tax rates. Rate this: Share this:PrintEmailFacebookTwitterMoredeliciousDiggFarkLinkedInRedditStumbleUponLike […]
[…] a previous post, I showed how rich people dramatically increased the amount of income they were willing to earn and […]
[…] a previous post, I showed how rich people dramatically increased the amount of income they were willing to earn and […]
[…] a previous post, I showed how rich people dramatically increased the amount of income they were willing to earn and […]
[…] a previous post, I showed how rich people dramatically increased the amount of income they were willing to earn and […]
[…] A Lesson on the Laffer Curve for Barack Obama « International Liberty. Share this:TwitterFacebookLinkedInStumbleUponEmailPrintLike this:LikeBe the first to like this […]
@truther: no. income is a negative function of tax rates. which is the reason why the laffer curve exists in the first place.
Am I missing something here? According to the chart the IRS collected almost $100 mil in taxes in 1988, five times the $20 mil it collected in 1980, albeit at a much lower tax rate. But taxable income from “rich” people was 10 times greater in 1988 than 1980. Can’t it be argued that the IRS would have (should have?) collected $200 mil in revenue in 1988 had the rate stayed at 70%??????
I agree with your larger point on the Laffer Curve but I do have one quibble:
There must be good examples other than the 1980 – 1988 comparison. The 1980 – 1988 comparison is a bit like comparing apples to oranges. The tax reform act of 1986 allowed for S-Corps, which led to a lot of income previously declared on corporate returns subsequently being declared (and taxed) on individual returns. Just that fact would account for a lot of the increase in individual tax payments.
Liberals also ignore this fact: I’ve seen them argue that corporate taxes accounted for much more of a percent of GDP in 1970 or 1980 vs 1990 or 2000. So corporations must be taxed more!!! But again, much income that was “corporate” pre-1986 is “individual” post-1986.
Personally I’d nuke the corporate tax rate altogether, as I suspect you would. Anyway, enjoy your blog, hope you don’t mind my nitpicking! 🙂
In discussing the Laffer curve nearly everyone ignores, the most important element: EFFECT ON ECONOMIC GROWTH.
Given sufficient time the effect of lower economic growth under high tax rates overrides all other factors when it comes to tax revenue (…and also GDP… and also overall prosperity).
So the Laffer curve CANNOT be presented or discussed without a time horizon.
The Laffer curve looks different if we are talking about tax revenue tomorrow, in a year, five years or twenty years. This is because it takes some time for people to react to changes in taxation (including the changing of lifetime trajectories towards mediocrity – ex. deciding to not go to college, deciding not to join that startup etc.), but PRIMARILY because it takes some time for the relentless effects of a compounding lower growth to affect GDP and thus also tax revenue.
In terms of elementary arithmetic:
If tax revenue in year n is represented as Tn = TR * BGDP0 * (1+GR)^ n where TR is the tax rate, BGDP0 is baseline GDP in baseline year 0, GR is the annual growth rate, and n is the year, then, GR always becomes THE DOMINANT factor given a large enough n.
In other words, the ratio of tax revenue under a high tax rate TRh over a low tax rate TRl always becomes less than 1 given a large enough time horizon n. In essence, the inequality
[TRh * BGDP0 * (1+GRh)^ n]/[ TRl * BGDP0 * (1+GRl)^ n] < 1
Always has a solution for n regardless of TRh,TRl so long as GRh<GRl i.e. so long as higher tax rates result in lower economic growth.
That is why, the left, in order to also convince anyone who understands intuitive elementary arithmetic (? less than 20% of the population?) to acquiesce to higher tax rates, it must also sell the story that higher tax rates also result in higher growth rates.
So the postulate that “all tax cuts pay for themselves” or that “tax increases always mean less revenue.” Is likely true if one adds “…after a sufficient number of years” or “… given a long enough time horizon”.
Hence the problem of the suicidal 60% (American voters that is): “I’m in distress now [because my standard of living is sliding from the top 15% worldwide to 18% worldwide] therefore redistribute NOW, the future be damned, so I rest my Hope that Change to redistribution and central planning will lead to high economic growth and prosperity – I drink the cool aid of delusion for now and we’ll find something later that will propel us back to the top 10% of world prosperity”. Once you’re gone, once you’ve become France, you can’t come back. Absorption into the worldwide average will be your fate.
In short,
People in the Democratic Western World want high tax rates because they want a large proportion of the economy to be collectively managed, it gives them control, and hope that they will be disproportionately recipients of tax revenue (at least what is left after waste fraud and abuse) rather than contributors to the inefficient pile.
The less than one billion citizens of the Western World is embracing the above pernicious delusion at the very time that three billion newly awakened people in the Emerging World are rejecting it. Thus convergence of the western citizen into the world prosperity average is inevitable and will be quick. Things move fast in the 21st century. Declines that used to take centuries will now be complete in a few short decades. That is the story you are now living through dear Americans…
Adam Smith wrote about the Laffer Curve two-hundred years before Laffer: “High taxes, sometimes by diminishing the consumption of the taxed commodities, and sometimes by encouraging smuggling, frequently afford a smaller revenue to government than what might be drawn from more moderate taxes.”