It is a joke.
Reader comment on: Sowell Versus Herbert on Taxes
Submitted by ben (United States), Feb 15, 2011 22:30
One would expect that under bill Clinton, a President who raised taxes, that federal receipts would decline (going the other direction on the laffer curve). They didn't. From 1992-2000 federal receipts nearly doubled, leading the budget surplus that President Bush quickly gave to the rich. Why would the laffer curve function in one direction and not the other? Because it is pseudo-economics. It is a rationalization for a policy of tax cuts for the rich.
Wealthy individuals owe far more to society for their wealth than they pay in taxes. Would Bill Gates have invented Microsoft if he had lived in Botswana? Would the Koch brothers each be worth billions if they were born into a rural village in China? Of course not. Our open society with a strong educational system, infrastructure, university system, free market etc is what allows these men (they are mostly men) to become fabulously wealthy. it is in our best interests as a society to avoid such concentrated wealth that could threaten the social mobility and opportunity that makes this country great.
Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.
The Future of Capitalism replies:
Clinton cut capital gains taxes, and also tariffs via NAFTA and GATT/WTO, that's when the growth really started kicking in.
But I like your point about the curve functioning in both directions. Left wingers who want more government spending should back lower tax rates to get more tax revenue for govt. spending, and conservatives who want smaller govt should favor starving the govt of revenues by raising rates to the point where no one will pay the taxes. Funny how it doesnt work that way....
Other reader comments on this item
Comment on this item