My Home About Me

Several readers have asked that I comment on Jason Furman's column in Slate attacking the Laffer Curve. Furman is actually a fairly reasonable guy as liberal economists go. But on a first quick scan, I noticed this: There has long been a conflict between responsible conservative economists who make carefully hedged claims about the relatively modest economic effects of tax cuts and Laffer curve lovers, who think that tax cuts always spur enormous gains. And lately, emboldened by the large jump in tax revenues in 2005 and 2006 (and conveniently overlooking the nearly unprecedented three consecutive years of declining tax revenues that preceded it), Laffer disciples have widened their separation from mainstream economists into a chasm.If this is the premise of his argument, it's one based on error. It's simply not true that there were "three consecutive years of declining tax revenues" before 2005. Tax revenues increased in 2004, they did not decline. That's true of individual income taxes, corporate taxes, and Social Security taxes. So the years of increase aren't just 2005 and 2006 -- they are, in fact, 2004, 2005, and 2006. And the big tax cuts were in 2003 -- the year before the increased revenues started. Why should Laffer Curve advocates have to explain decreases in taxes before their tax cuts were enacted? I think Furman should run a correction on this one -- and I'm going to email him to that effect.

bailout   Basic Materials SPDR (XLB)   bond trading   bond yields   capitulation   climactic   commodities   credit crisis   credit crunch   Currency ETFs   day trading   Deron Wagner   DJIA chart   economic data   Emini's Nas 100   emini's S&P 500   emini's S&P 500e   ETFs (exchange trade funds)   ETFs (exchange traded funds)   Gold Miners ETF (GDX)