Replies

This can be argued in the context of the Laffer curve by saying that the 30 to 40 percent range is close to point A shown in post 5. The Laffer curve, and supply siders, do not deny point A, they affirm it. At some point, tax rates are too low to generate maximum government revenues.

I agree. However, any supply-sider who argues that the Bush tax cut increased revenues would presumably believe that we are closer to point B.

I think the problem here is that almost all analysts simply "run the numbers." Someone goes to their spreadsheet, reduces a tax rate factor and tax revenues go down correspondingly. If you double the rate, you double the revenue. It would be like going to a car dealer's spreadsheet, doubling unit price, and computing a doubling of revenues.

I do know that the government's process of "running the numbers" is much more accurate than simply doubling the revenues to estimate the result of a doubling of the tax rate. For example, the following graph shows the results of a CBO study that estimated the cost of Bush's 2004 budget proposals using the conventional "running of the numbers" and various supply-side models:

As you can see, there was not that huge of a difference. In any case, the actual numbers and sources can be seen at http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/cbobud04.html

"the following graph shows the results of a CBO study that estimated the cost of Bush's 2004 budget proposals using the conventional "running of the numbers" and various supply-side models:"

Are any of these models supply-side models? If so, which ones?

"I do know that the government's process of "running the numbers" is much more accurate than simply doubling the revenues to estimate the result of a doubling of the tax rate."

I will grant that there is some access to, and reliance upon, economic models. Though I think most budget analysts still fall back to a simple toting of sums. The assumptions of the economic models are critical. I saw no evidence that suppy-side assumptions were incorporated in any of the projections shown in the charts. This may pertain to your observation that:

"As you can see, there was not that huge of a difference."

Thanks for providing the information. Frankly, it seems designed to impress, and had somewhat the opposite affect on me. It is my understanding that neither CBO forecasts, nor econometric models, have a great track record. I enjoyed your discussion of the Laffer curve. I gather you think we are to the left of the maximum revenue point. I think it would be very hard to sort this out using econometric models. How much of today's prosperity, and tax revenue enhancement, is due to an increase in entrepreneurial activity fostered by the Reagan tax cuts? This is not so easy to test or "prove" one way or the other. The big picture is easier to see. Low tax eras and countries tend to outperform high tax eras and countries. Control of Government spending is a big help too!

Post 5 identified the maximum revenue point as the "Equilibrium Point." This suggests that there is a tendency to adjust tax rates until we reach that point. Once at the Equilibrium, we would try to remain there. Perhaps. Some view this point as "optimal." If it is optimal, it is optimal from the vantage of Government. Not everyone believes the purpose of life, or economic behavior, is to maximize government revenues. If point A gives us greater economic growth and freedom, I might prefer point A. If point B gives us greater economic equality, even at the cost of depressed growth, some would prefer point B.