The Laffer curve, despite being used to suggest we should lower tax, actually suggests that countries should increase them. Should we, or we should reject supply side economics totally?
Unless the tax rate goes to 100% or higher the "Laffer curve" is both fallacious and anti-capitalist in it assumptions. Taxes are based on profits. In the capitalist system as long as there is pretax profit present in each incremental unit and the tax is not 100% or higher then the incremental unit will be produced and sold. "Laffer" suggests that at some tax level below 100% the capitalist will cease to produce and sell the incremental units because there isn't "enough" profit after taxes. An example. You are in the 28% tax bracket and earn $174,400. Laffer suggests you will refuse to earn the next dollar because it "only" produce 67 cents in additional income as opposed to 72 cents. If this were true Prince Fielder would stop playing after the 20th game. Tom brady would stop playing mid way through the first quarter of the first game of preseason. Laffer makes sense like "Spontaneous Generation" and "Earth is the center of the universe" make sense.
Heijman and van Ophem (2005, Willingness to pay tax: The Laffer curve revisited for 12 OECD countries, Journal of Socio-Economics, Vol 34 Issue 5, pp 714-723): According to Laffer, economic activities are a decreasing function of the taxation rate. As a consequence, total tax revenue increases with the taxation rate at its lower levels and decreases against it at its higher levels. The result is the Laffer curve. According to him, the reason for this decrease lies in decreasing economic activities. Although this may be true for activities in the official (white) sector, in the unofficial (black) sector they can increase under the influence of an increasing taxation rate. Part of the Laffer effect may be nothing more than an activity switch away from the white towards the (hidden) black sector. This paper takes both effects into account: decreasing activities in the white sector combined with increasing activities in the black sector. It examines the computation of the maximum tax revenue generating taxation rate for a number of OECD countries. It concludes that, with the exception of Sweden, the marginal taxation rate in these countries is below its optimum A Laffer approach that demands higher taxes no less!
?!? I won't pay to read the entire report (especially after this excerpt). Increasing the rate ot tax forces taxable (white) activity into untaxable (black) activity. Because the economy hasn't slowed, just moved underground, you can increase taxes even further. On who? Those that can't move their activity underground. Charming.
The important point is that the Laffer logic actually leads to an increase in taxes. You haven't offered any reasoned rebuke
You are confusing Laffer's logic with Heijman and van Ophem assumptions, and "analysis" based on those assumptions. No reasoned rebuke? ROTFL
Nope. I'm referring to the consequences of the empirical analysis into the Laffer curve logic. You may not like the conclusions, but that would only be a tedious humph of no importance
The clip from the report showed that concequence only if a huge black market was created. Is that is your goal from higher taxes?
You didn't present an argument! Are you dismissing, for example, that the Laffer curve is likely to be multi-peaked? If so, could you present any evidence in support?
No need for childishness! I've referred directly to the empirical evidence. That certainly refers to the multipeaked curve and also indicates the tax increases are often in order. Can you provide a relevant critique or not?
Folks only toss out the laffer curve when it suits their argument. The idea that our economic productivity is effected so strongly at the margin by tax rates seems ludicrous. Not only that, but do we just get to assume that government takes and burns all the revenue? Otherwise anything they provide is being ignored when considering total productivity. Oversimplification to the max.
ROTFL Businesses use a variation of the Laffer Curve to set gross margin, for exactly the same reason, to maximize income.
This is utter nonsense. Where do you get these silly notions? Even mises.org doesn't peddle such gross error
Depends on the circumstances, typically one doesn't (its determined by the market) or cost-plus pricing is followed. Neither has anything to do with Laffer
There is never "a price". In my business, we 100's of millions of low cost parts. Even then, the price is flexible over a couple of percent. Our profit margin is low, that couple of percent can be significant. What is best, 40% market share, 2% high, or 60% market share at parity, or 80% market share at 1% low. Plot the profit dollars, and you have the same income curve as the Laffer Curve. What does that mean?
This continues to be drivel! The Laffer curve refers to a hypothetical supply side phenomena. You're referring to demand, but describing the practicalities associated with cost-plus alternatives (making you rather post-Keynesian!)
That nearly every company in a truly competitive market has their prices determined for them by various factors, very few firm are able to dictate their price to the market.
Cost-plus is more common than you think! And its jolly great to see the fellow embrace post-keynesianism (even if its also wrapped up in concept abuse)