Every so often, I see a cartoon or image that provides a teachable moment about economics.
This Wizard-of-Id parody, for instance, contains a lot of insight about labor economics. As does this Chuck Asay cartoon and this Robert Gorrell cartoon.
And if you want to understand Keynesian economics, this Scott Stantis cartoon is a gem, as is the third image in this post (and while there’s no economic substance, this Lisa Benson cartoon about Keynesianism is worth sharing simply because it’s funny).
Regarding the minimum wage, Henry Payne effectively shows – in this cartoon and this cartoon – how mandating above-market wages is very bad news for those with limited skills.
You can also get clear messages about why a welfare state is economically destructive in this classic from Chuck Asay, as well as these home-made cartoons on riding the wagon vs pulling the wagon, which have received more views than anything else I’ve ever posted.
Surprisingly, though, I haven’t seen many cartoons about the economics of tax policy or supply-side economics.
I’ve shared lots of cartoons (see here, here, here, here, here, and here) and one image about class warfare, but they invariably seem to make philosophical or political points.
Same for the cartoons about the value-added tax (here, here, and here). They’re funny, but they’re not teaching any economics.
The only tax-oriented cartoons that have some economic education include this Chuck Asay cartoon includes some basic observations on incentives, but his main point is about vote-buying rather than economics.
The second cartoon in this post makes a good point about taxes driving away economic activity, but it’s probably best categorized as mockery rather than economic education. And these cartoons about corporate inversions also could be categorized that way.
So I’m delighted to share this image a reader sent to me.
I’m not sure why it uses a dinosaur, but it perfectly summarizes the case for supply-side economics.
I’m a big fan of this image for two reasons.
First, I almost always use this example when giving speeches about tax policy. Just about everyone in an audience will understand that politicians commonly argue that we need higher tobacco taxes to discourage smoking. I tell them I don’t think it’s government’s job to dictate our private behavior, but I also tell them the politicians are right: The more you tax of something, the less you get of it. I then point out that the same principle applies to taxes on productive behavior such as work, saving, and investment, which is why tax rates should be as low as possible.
Second, even leftists admit (when it suits their purpose) that taxes impact incentives. President Obama’s former chief economist, for instance, wrote that “all taxes discourage something. Why not discourage bad things…rather than good things, such as working and saving.” Of course, he somehow forgot these insights when Obama was pushing for class-warfare tax hikes as part of the fiscal cliff deal.
P.S. I’m not sure whether these qualify as economically educational, but I heartily recommend this Chuck Asay cartoon on regime uncertainty and this A.F. Branco cartoon on Obama’s hostility to entrepreneurship.
P.P.S. I do have a couple of stories that make insightful and educational points about taxation. And they tend to be very popular. This story on “the tax system explained in beer” is my second-most-viewed post. And the “socialism in the classroom” example about the perils of redistribution is my fifth-most-viewed post.
[…] Next we have some satire that contains a very important lesson. […]
[…] all, if higher taxes on tobacco leads to less smoking, surely it is true that higher taxes on employment leads to less […]
[…] all, if higher taxes on tobacco leads to less smoking, surely it is true that higher taxes on employment leads to less […]
[…] on the left bitterly resisted Reagan’s “supply-side” agenda, arguing that “the rich won’t pay enough” and “the government will be starved of […]
[…] on the left bitterly resisted Reagan’s “supply-side” agenda, arguing that “the rich won’t pay enough” and “the government will be starved of […]
[…] on the left bitterly resisted Reagan’s “supply-side” agenda, arguing that “the rich won’t pay enough” and “the government will be starved of […]
[…] on the left bitterly resisted Reagan’s “supply-side” agenda, arguing that “the rich won’t pay enough” and “the government […]
[…] resident philoso-raptor makes a return appearance (previous appearances here and here) to ask a question that even Hillary Clinton answered […]
[…] stated, the more you tax of something, the less you get of it, and this applies to taxes on labor and taxes on […]
[…] to what Prof. Markovitz proposes and what South Africa is considering, wouldn’t have adverse economic effects because it penalizes productive behavior in the past (and there’s no way for people to reduce […]
[…] the risk of over-simplifying, the difference between “supply-side economics” and “demand-side economics” is that the former is based on microeconomics […]
[…] Senator Harris has succeeded in that dubious achievement and has figured out how to create an anti-supply-side tax cut. It’s gets worse, though. The tax cut […]
[…] The Philoso-raptor surely would agree. […]
[…] Para todos los efectos, ella ha descubierto cómo tener un recorte de impuestos por el lado de la oferta. […]
[…] since I’m a big fan of sensible tax policy and the Laffer Curve, we’re going to share Mark’s new chart […]
[…] all intents and purposes, she has figured out how to have an anti-supply-side tax […]
[…] resident philoso-raptor makes a return appearance (previous appearances here and here) to ask a question that even Hillary Clinton answered […]
[…] ser justos, la teoría económica del lado de la oferta tiene sus méritos, pero también tiene límites estrictospara garantizar una base fiscal estable. Al final del día, […]
[…] The philoso-raptor contemplating supply-side economics. […]
[…] be fair, supply-side economic theory does have its merits, but it also has hard limits in ensuring a stable fiscal foundation. At the end of the day, […]
[…] be fair, supply-side economic theory does have its merits, but it also has hard limits in ensuring a stable fiscal foundation. At the end of the day, […]
[…] economists who crunched the numbers produced results that confirm some of the essential principles of supply-side […]
[…] To get more prosperity, lower tax rates on productive behaviors such as work, saving, investment, and […]
[…] The essential insight of supply-side economics. […]
[…] essential insight of supply-side […]
[…] de fazê-los entender que impostos mais altos em outras áreas de atividade econômica também terão efeitos similares […]
[…] certainly a very legitimate position, but note that his policy is based on supply-side economics: The more you tax of something, the less you get of […]
[…] The purpose of that column was to share with my leftist friends an example of a tax increase that achieved something they desired (i.e., putting a damper on sales of expensive houses) in hopes of getting them to understand that higher taxes on other types of economic activity also will have similar effects. […]
[…] I don’t think it’s the role of government to dictate our private behavior, I tell them that they are right about higher taxes on tobacco leading to less smoking (also more smuggling, but that’s a separate […]
[…] tell them that they are right about higher taxes on tobacco leading to less smoking (also more smuggling, but that’s a separate […]
[…] think it’s the role of government to dictate our private behavior, I tell them that they are right about higher taxes on tobacco leading to less smoking (also more smuggling, but that’s a […]
[…] That would leave them less time to tax our earnings. […]
[…] philoso-raptor contemplating supply-side […]
[…] to understand an issue. Examples include the minimum wage, economic policy, the welfare state, supply-side economics, the tax code, Europe’s fiscal crisis, Social Security reform, demographics, overpaid […]
[…] tax policy, the philoso-raptor explains supply-side economics and Paul Bunyan helps to illustrate why double taxation is so […]
[…] The philoso-raptor explaining supply-side economics. […]
[…] The philoso-raptor explaining supply-side economics. […]
I came here because of your excellent class warfare diagram.
And I leave you with this, for balance:
http://www.newyorker.com/cartoons/a14902
[…] The philoso-raptor explaining supply-side economics. […]
[…] The philoso-raptor explaining supply-side economics. […]
I try to remind people to think of taxes as a verb and not a noun.
[…] The philoso-raptor explaining supply-side economics. […]
[…] Here, in one image, is all you really need to know about the economics of […]
[…] Here, in one image, is all you really need to know about the economics of […]
[…] issues such as demographics, entitlements, fiscal policy, France, Greece, corporate inversions, supply-side economics, income inequality, the Ryan budget, Social Security reform, comparative economic systems, and […]
[…] mostly in the starve-the-beast camp, though I like the supply-side approach (perfectly captured in this image) because of the recognition of how good tax policy boosts […]
[…] P.P.S. While economist deservedly get mocked, we’re not totally useless. We occasionally show a bit of cleverness. […]
[…] P.P.S. While economist deservedly get mocked, we’re not totally useless. We occasionally show a bit of cleverness. […]
[…] our private lives, but my bigger point is that the economic arguments about taxes and smoking are the same as those involving taxes on work, saving, […]
[…] rate is as low as possible, to minimize penalties on productive […]
[…] rate is as low as possible, to minimize penalties on productive […]
[…] Which means that it doesn’t make sense to have policies that penalize either saving and investment or working. […]
[…] low tax rate – This is the best-known feature of the flat tax. A low tax rate is designed to minimize the penalty on work, entrepreneurship, and other forms of productive […]
[…] low tax rate – This is the best-known feature of the flat tax. A low tax rate is designed to minimize the penalty on work, entrepreneurship, and other forms of productive […]
[…] authors start by pointing out that the defining characteristic of supply-side economics is lower marginal tax rates on productive behavior (work, saving, investment, risk-taking, […]
[…] authors start by pointing out that the defining characteristic of supply-side economics is lower marginal tax rates on productive behavior (work, saving, investment, risk-taking, […]
[…] this post from last year, for instance, I put together some of my favorite examples on topics such as Keynesian economics, […]
[…] this post from last year, for instance, I put together some of my favorite examples on topics such as Keynesian economics, […]
[…] this post from last year, for instance, I put together some of my favorite examples on topics such as Keynesian economics, […]
Another version of this same image would show this rejoinder: “Does federal tax on business deter business?”
Abolish the corporate income tax!
The dinosaur is a meme called Philosoraptor. He usually has insightful or philosophical things to say.
Another good one that could have been used for this is Sudden Clarity Clarence (look him up).
The minimum wage controversy is a travesty of attempted logical thinking. First: The assumption of setting a minimum wage is predicated on the false assumption that this is somehow a right to be determined by the economic policy of our politicians. Second: An adequate minimum wage is impossible to be defined simply because of the perrenial inflationary impact of ever increasing deficit spending by our government, which causes a constant inflationary increase in goods and services caused by inflationary spending. Third: Once we accept the validity of the false premise that there should somehow be a minimum wage as defined by politicallly imposed economic policy, we are doomed to acquisece to the acceptance of the ever increasing minimum wage. Fourth: The only way to resolve this issue is to disallow our politicians from imposing upon us their false premise that they are somehow given the right to determine what any wage should be.
POTPOURRI-c.swinney Copied from twc.org 8-29-14. It will be wise to read the numerous details A. End the endless wars. Repeal the 2011 Authorization for the use of military force. Disclose the rule for use of drones Repeal the Patriot Act Close that durn useless Gitmo The U.S. has involvement with 40 of 54 countries on the African continent. Congress should listen to the peopleâs skepticism of foreign involvements. 98 major weapons systems. Waste galore. Hundreds of bases offshore . Prevent the next war. Keep trigger happy ones off the trigger. B. Three myths. America is derived from individual efforts of the strong, the producers. The Government cannot do anything. Government punishes success. Get a reasonable minimum wage not the 1968 one we have. C. Who Cares About our General Welfare? Wall Street and Bid Banks. Which is worse? Koch or Coke? I.O.U. other countries. Owed 15B in 1981 to 528B in 2012. Buy Cheap/Pay High. America once had a tariff on these imports.
D. Free Market monopolies 3 corp. own about 75% of all health insurance sold. 4 own 90% of grain. 3 control 70% of beef. 4 control 58% of pork and chicken- 4 control breakfast foods and snack foods, 60% of cookies and 50% of ice cream. 4 own 89% of cell phone market. 4 control 50% of internet. 4 control 50% of internet.
E. REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH The size of the American economy DOUBLED between 1980 & 2005. Yet! During that period the 90% of Americans saw their income drop by an average of $4000. The top 1% saw their income rise. From 2002-2007 the wealthiest 1% had 2/3rds of the income gain and owned34% of wealth. The top 1% own 72% of the nationâs wealth. 50% own only 2.5% of wealth. The 400 richest have an average income of 345 million double what they had in 2001. Bush slashed their tax rate from 28.5% to 16.6%. The problem is the redistribution of wealth away from the middle and working class. The situation is far from hopeless, but it requires an enormous act of will for the country to grow up.
F. PUBLIC FINANCED ELECTIONS Fully 80% of voter believe it is likely, as a result of so much money in elections at this date.
G. REMEMBERNG RONALD REAGAN He gave Amnesty to illegal immigrants. He shored up Social Security. He was a union leader in the past. He opposed weaponization. He dreamed of a world free of nuclear weapons. He raised taxes 7 times.