This is why we need regulations...

[Psychic Robot]

What you are doing is implying implications. You are implying the implication that her statement is wrong because of the source.

No, what I'm implying is that I don't give a damn about what a bunch of cockgobblers like Think Progress have to say about anything.

So how about a clear answer? Psychic Robot, do tax cuts reduce total tax revenue?

Dohohoho. Yes, but not at the farthest edge of the Laffer curve.

EDIT: I misspoke, causing much confusion. Reaganomics is cocks.

[Adalon]

Dohohoho. Only at the farthest edge of the Laffer curve.

Are you aware of the fact that this statement directly and explicitly contradicts the entire concept of the Laffer Curve? Or at this point are you just descending into propaganda to avoid admitting the obvious?

[TOZ]

So how about a clear answer? Psychic Robot, do tax cuts reduce total tax revenue?

No, if the taxes cut are not generating any revenue.

[Psychic Robot]

Are you aware of the fact that this statement directly and explicitly contradicts the entire concept of the Laffer Curve?

It really doesn't.

[Crissa]

The Laffer Curve is a curve, but really, there's no evidence for it existing at levels of taxation ever found in the US or modern EU.

It's like... I dunno. Saying that because metal melts, we should store it in the freezer.

-Crissa

[K]

The Laffer Curve is a curve, but really, there's no evidence for it existing at levels of taxation ever found in the US or modern EU.

It's like... I dunno. Saying that because metal melts, we should store it in the freezer.

-Crissa

Check out the wiki on the Laffer curve. It's actually pretty funny.

It talks about how if was an idea cooked up by Laffer, Rumsfield, Cheney, and some other guy over lunch, and how there is no real evidence that it models anything. Laffer himself said you should not use it to determine the raising or lowering of taxes.

Then it goes on to say that the only reason you might get more revenue by cutting taxes is because you might get less tax evasion if the taxes are lower.

The backstory shows that the Laffer curve is a piece of conservative political propaganda, and not real economics. Put it in the same trash bin we keep Reagonomics and other failed political ideas disguised as serious economic thought.

[Adalon]

Are you aware of the fact that this statement directly and explicitly contradicts the entire concept of the Laffer Curve?

It really doesn't.

Yes, it really does. The Laffer curve, quite aside from it's factual value, or where the US currently is on the curve, or what a real Laffer curve would look like, "demonstrates" that there exists one specific value of maximized tax revenue, and that at tax rates lower than that value, cutting taxes would raise tax revenue, and that likewise if the tax rate is above that point, tax cuts would increase revenue.

To claim, as you have chosen to, that tax cuts only decrease revenue at the farthest edge of the curve is to claim that the Laffer curve is completely wrong, and that in fact there exists a plateau of rates all of which are identical in tax revenue at every point, except a couple small tails.

This is contradictory to the Laffer curve itself, quite aside from the general insanity of the statement.

[Psychic Robot]

No, not really. I merely deny that the shape of the Laffer curve is a perfect parabola. I think it is heavily, heavily skewed so that the highest point is probably around 85% tax rate.

[Adalon]

No, not really. I merely deny that the shape of the Laffer curve is a perfect parabola. I think it is heavily, heavily skewed so that the highest point is probably around 85% tax rate.

If you claim it's highest point is at 85%, then you are claiming that over 85% of the Laffer curve cutting taxes reduces total revenue. IE the exact opposite of your claim "only at the far edge." 85% of the curve is not the far edge.

[Crissa]

Put it in the same trash bin we keep Reagonomics and other failed political ideas disguised as serious economic thought.

If only forty percent of the Senate didn't buy into it. Or at least, as a bludgeon to use to get theirs at the country's teat.

-Crissa

[Psychic Robot]

If you claim it's highest point is at 85%, then you are claiming that over 85% of the Laffer curve cutting taxes reduces total revenue. IE the exact opposite of your claim "only at the far edge." 85% of the curve is not the far edge.

So you've been reduced to quibbling over what I really meant when I used vague terminology. After I clarified. Seriously, fuck right off, you turd.

[Zinegata]

So... people were ragging on PR for "supporting" Reagonomics... when he was in fact was saying he was against it?

The Den really is full of ideology-obsessed assholes who are no better than a bunch of bible-thumpers preaching how faith conquers everything.

Bloody idiots.

[Adalon]

If you claim it's highest point is at 85%, then you are claiming that over 85% of the Laffer curve cutting taxes reduces total revenue. IE the exact opposite of your claim "only at the far edge." 85% of the curve is not the far edge.

So you've been reduced to quibbling over what I really meant when I used vague terminology. After I clarified. Seriously, fuck right off, you turd.

No, I'm pointing out that your initial answer: "Almost Never" is the exact opposite of your current answer "Almost Always."

If your clarification consists of completely contradicting your initial claim, then you are not clarifying, you are changing your answer completely when held to actually backing up your random assertions.

Which means...

I really don't know what that means, that you are crazy? That you just treat this as a giant game to fuck with people? Whatever it is, it doesn't look good from my perspective.

[Psychic Robot]

Wow. I'm completely and totally in the wrong here. I misread what you originally said. My apologies for being retarded. I believe that cutting taxes reduces revenue in almost all cases except the farthest edges of the Laffer curve.