Comments on: Laffer-able

By: Thisson

Thisson — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:23:20 +0000

@Marion Maneker,

I voted for Perot. Are you impressed? I thought not. Haha.

By: DL

DL — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 05:33:26 +0000

Marion Maneker @ 10:58

Don’t assume that I like “Bush deficits” any more than “Obama deficits”.

And Laffer has been very critical of Bush, at least over the last few months.

By: Marion Maneker

Marion Maneker — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:58:08 +0000

“I think Laffer is afraid of the future tax liability that Obama is imposing on all of us, and I share his concern.”

I’d be more impressed with his and your concern for the future liability if it had been expressed any time in the last 8 years.

By: DL

DL — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:50:30 +0000

“Did anyone on the panel believe that Americans of all income levels are sitting on the couch … instead of working because they’re unhappy with their income tax? They’re knocking off early because the marginal rates are too high and they’d prefer the leisure time to the minimal extra money?”

I think that for people who work for an employer and who earn a steady paycheck, the marginal tax rate has very minimal impact on their choice of work versus leisure. But for people who own their own business, or for professionals who have a choice between working more or less, the marginal tax rate does make a difference (although probably a lot less so in a slack economy). I’m in the first category rather than the second, but for me, the marginal tax rate would make a difference if I owned a business. The issue is also more complicated than just work versus leisure; there is also the matter of expending time and effort to fully utilize legal tax loopholes, and to utilize other “loopholes” that are not so legal. The higher the tax rates go, the more tax avoidance one can expect, at least for small business owners.

I think Laffer is afraid of the future tax liability that Obama is imposing on all of us, and I share his concern.

By: wunsacon

wunsacon — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:44:37 +0000

No need for bridges to nowhere. Please sign up for the Pickens Plan. TODAY. pickensplan.org

The more people who sign up, the more he can persuade politicians to make our nation more self-sufficient.

PLEASE.

By: DL

DL — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:35:42 +0000

I would rather see a temporary (e.g., 12 months) suspension of the payroll tax, than to spend an equivalent amount of money on bridges to nowhere, or parks for polar bears. It MIGHT be true, IN THE SHORT RUN, that paying people to dig holes and fill them up again would “stimulate” the economy more than letting people keep their own money. But to the extent that individuals choose to save their additional after-tax income, rather than spending it, that’s a good thing in and of itself. There’s nothing wrong with individuals paying down their debt, or increasing their savings. I think that would constitute a far better use of money than much of the construction spending that Obama wants. I know that I would much rather keep my own money than to give it to Obama’s buddies.

And we must also realize, of course, that the bill for all this spending nonsense is going to come due one of these days.

By: Che Stadium

Che Stadium — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:25:40 +0000

“Did anyone on the panel believe that Americans of all income levels are sitting on the couch–or lounging out by the pool–instead of working because they’re unh”appy with their income tax? ”

Speaking as a sample of one. tax rates hardly affect my behavior at all. I just save/invest less or borrow more. I pay taxes quarterly and for some reason I save and invest less in some months than in others.

By: mudpuppy

mudpuppy — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:32:15 +0000

Donna says she pays 56% in taxes. Thus if you make 100,000 you pay 56,000. Or if you make 1,000,000 you pay 560,000.
I don’t think so. You’re talking about marginal rates.

By: barrister999

barrister999 — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:10:45 +0000

I was watching it when he came on and after I heard his criticism of the Obama plan and his tax moratorium plan, I turned it off. I think both Laffer and Larry Kudlow, have marginalized themselves as economists with their rigid adherence to ’supply side’ economics. They are both broken records. I wonder why CNBC keeps Kudlow and puts Laffer on so often.

By: Blissex

Blissex — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 23:22:31 +0000

«6-month income tax moratorium: how great a stimulus would that be? After all, Laffer reasoned, freeing citizens from the undue burden of taxes would get them all out working harder and spending money. [ ... ] They just nodded their heads in agreement and kept the bobbing up as Laffer launched into his idea that capital gains should not be taxed at all.»

That kind of well paid sycophant somehow is always and only against capital gains and income taxes that immorally oppress highly productive high income winners, and curiously enough never mentions the well deserved burden of sales taxes and payroll taxes on the low income worthless losers in the lowest 80% of the population.