okie wrote:Maybe you are getting the point. The Laffer curve is not an exact science. I am trying to pound that into your head. But it does exist, and even you see the consequences at the extremes.
If you sit in the sun for 16 hours, you will get a sunburn. If you sit in it 5 minutes, you won't. Can anyone predict exactly what sunburn will result at 3 hours, 6 hours, whatever on different days with different conditions, clouds, etc. Perhaps no, but we do know one thing, there are consequences, so we need to consider what amount of time is safe. Same principle with tax rates, and if you blithely ignore there is any relationship, you will get burned.
Good grief, this argument is preposterously childish. Can't you grasp the simplest of concepts?
You don't seem to grasp that it isn't a simple concept.
Look, let's start with the idea of there being a 'curve.' A curve is a mathematical picture of a series, or interval, of real numbers. These numbers are then plotted according to a set scheme, say on a Cartesian Plane. The data points are then compared - a line is drawn between them - to show an overall picture of how things change in a series over time.
So, how does the 'laffer curve' actually
become a curve? That's the whole problem with the theory, Okie; there
are no data points to plug in to make it exist! You can't actually create a laffer curve by looking at real data. This makes people pretty suspicious as to its' accuracy. The only data that can be put in is at the extreme ends - say 1-5% of taxation and 95-100% of taxation. This doesn't make a curve. There's no 'curve' to it.
Let's take your 'sit in the sun example.' It's actually quite good. Because the laffer curve only posits
two variables in its' axes - It is quite limited in actaully describing a real-world situation. So, with the example, if we followed a 'laffer curve' to decide how long one could sit in the sun, there would only be two variables:
X, Length of duration in the sun
And
Y, Amount of sunburn recorded
This would give us a simple curve - it won't go up and down like this one, but it will look somewhat similar:
But, what about the other important factors? Like
- Genetic susceptibility to sunburn
- Cloud cover that day
- Time of year/Intensity of the sun
- Suntan lotion (sunblock)
- wind that day (BIG factor, actually!)
- Level of hydration of subject.
And so on. All of these factors effect the ability to make an accurate and real prediction. And when you start thinking about how to plot them, it gets
decidedly dicey. At first, if you want three dimensions, it would look something like this:
MOre complicated by a lot.
Now imagine factoring in
all the factors, or at least as many as you
know are variables. I don't even have the ability to show you a picture of what that would look like. It's theoretical stuff, at least to me. Now imagine that we are talking about the economy of our nation instead, and that there are
dozens or hundreds of factors involved in it. Maybe thousands.
How the hell do you plot that on a graph?????? You cannot. This is the failing of the 'laffer curve'; no such curve exists for two reasons: first, there is no data to actually support making a simple curve. Second, there is no way to make an accurate plotting of the different factors BESIDES taxation which effect the ecnomy/revenue generation. It is nothing more than a simplistic way to look at an incredibly complicated problem - but that will lead to simplistic and
incorrect answers, every time.
You state that:
Quote:Perhaps no, but we do know one thing, there are consequences, so we need to consider what amount of time is safe.
Sure, noone disagrees that we should consider the correct level of taxation. We just disagree that the concept of a 'curve' will produce anything like the answer which matches reality.
Strangely enough, your argument - that we know that there is
some problem, and we need to do something about it even if we can't understand it completely - is
my argument in the Global Warming thread. But you don't seem to agree there
Cycloptichorn
