Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
Mother Jones is every bit as credible on matters economic as Art Laffer, and the notion of using Laffer as an expert on the benefits of supply-side economics is laughable on its face (it's kinda like using Alex Jones as an expert on pizzeria child sex rings). [B]Laffer has never provided empirical evidence to support the validity of his model in the real world (and real world experience have dispelled it time and again). [/IB He has never been able to pinpoint where we are on the Laffer Curve, nor at what point on the curve maximum revenue is realized. He's an economic charlatan, plain and simple.
Your article only shows that people generally prefer low income tax to high income tax. No shit, Sherlock. It fails, however, to account for sales taxes and taxes on real estate and personal property which are frequently much higher in states with low or no income taxes. State governments need to get their money from somewhere. They can't just print it or run deficits like the Federal government does.
|
Which is kinda the point, though I suspect you'd miss it. I posted this in response to Chicklet's op-ed, the premise of that piece of propaganda being that the folks aren't noticing the tax cuts. Well of course they are, and the of course folks generally prefer lower taxes.
In this case, folks are leaving states with higher taxes - and taking their wealth, spending and taxable incomes with them - for lower tax states. Raise taxes enough and what you get is lower tax revenue because folks are leaving. States like CA, NY and others are moving past the point of diminishing returns on tax increases and their seeing the results as folks exit the state. What's the proposition of supply side? Reduce the cost of something and you get more of it. The inverse is also true - raise the cost of something and you get less of it. CA, NY and other states are providing the evidence.