[seanhunter]

My understanding is every time a "Laffer curve inspired" tax cut has happened in practise, tax revenues have indeed gone down.[1]

The thing about the Laffer curve idea that I don't understand is the curve doesn't need to be continuous. Say we accept at a tax rate of 100% you get no marginal benefit from working so no-one will work and the tax take will go to zero, at a tax rate of 100%-epsilon you still get (small) additional marginal utility for each additional dollar earned, so it's still in your interests to work. So it's literally only at a tax rate of 100% that the Laffer concept would make the tax take go to zero.

[1] https://medium.com/junior-economist/the-laffer-curve-6bb2833...

"In practice, the Laffer Curve has not provided the dual benefits of lower taxes and higher revenue. In fact, every US tax cut since 1965 has been followed with a sharp decrease in tax revenue, while every increase in taxes has led to an increase in government tax revenue."

[bmm6o]

> So it's literally only at a tax rate of 100% that the Laffer concept would make the tax take go to zero.

Yeah, that's the point of the curve. I don't think you've made a convincing argument against continuity.

And the quote seems to misunderstand the curve (I didn't read the article). The curve itself is reasonable, the main debate is where the current tax regime puts you - to the right or left of the peak. The other mistake is that many people using the curve to argue for lower taxes are not really honest debaters. They want lower taxes and use any argument available. They state that we're on the right even though ask evidence suggests the opposite.