View text source at Wikipedia

Talk:Laffer curve

Unnecessary qualifiers in the lead

[edit]

An IGM survey showed consensus that the US was not on the wrong side of the Laffer curve. Text about how cutting taxes would increase GDP is irrelevant, and it's unnecessary to qualify the consensus with "next five years". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What would you propose as a rewrite? Bonewah (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would simply say: "There is a consensus among leading economists that a reduction in the US federal income tax rate will not raise annual total tax revenue." All the qualifiers of increasing GDP and whatever is obfuscatory. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty far reaching & disputed claim to make in the voice of Wikipedia, structural issues aside. North8000 (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We're not stating it in Wiki voice, but attributing it to a consensus view with a citation to the IGM Forum survey of economists. There's absolutely nothing contested about this among economists. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think your proposed edit would be a misrepresentation of the source. Bonewah (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Americentrism in article, esp. in lead

[edit]

I realize that this concept is and has been much more prominent in US political discourse than in most other countries so the article will likely always focus somewhat on the US. With that said, half of the lead is focused on the US specifically, using US marginal tax rates as examples, the US conservative political argument for lowering taxes, and the popularization of the concept among US politicans. Is there objection to reducing this Americentrism in the lead? Paisarepa 16:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that the focus would stay on America. Although Laffer has written about other nations (in support of tax reduction)....the vast majority of his commentary (and reply to his commentary) has regarded the American tax code. You may want to offer up what you would say (so it is clear).Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that although it bears his name, the Laffer curve is a universal concept not tied to Laffer himself. So although you could make a good case that Art Laffer's page should be America focused, i dont think that same case applies to the Laffer Curve. Bonewah (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Laffer himself is American, the concept is primarily used in US conservative discourse, and most of the literature on the subject is in relation to the US. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Laffer is an American is irrelevant. Id like to see what Paisarepa had in mind in terms of edits, im not sure why you guys are so quick to dismiss Paisarepa's concerns without so much as seeing what would change. Bonewah (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not Rolle's theorem.

[edit]

This was noted elsewhere in the talk section: the citation of Rolle's theorem is incorrect. Instead it should be the Extreme Value Theorem. Rolle's theorem assumes differentiability, not just continuity, and concludes only that the derivative is 0 somewhere in the interior of the interval, not that it has a maximum value. I'm not familiar enough with how Wikipedia is supposed to work, so I won't edit the article, but it absolutely needs to be edited.

Lead image

[edit]

I moved an image from a section to place at the top, which Rja13ww33 reverted, saying it was fine where it was. However, a lead image for an article like this would be useful. Would you be open to moving the image now that I explained my rationale? If you happen to not find that image suitable, what would you suggest Rja13ww33? ~BappleBusiness[talk] 03:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well first off you moved a single image in a article that has multiple images depicting the curve (by various estimates). The other problem is that it displaced the taxation sidebar.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many people only read the lead, so having an image at the top makes sense. If you want an image without an estimate, would File:Laffer Curve.png be okay? And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the convention for lead images to place them above sidebars? ~BappleBusiness[talk] 03:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With a lot of economics articles, you see the sidebars above any other side image. (I don't know if it's a policy or not). If we had to have a single image in the lead....the curve as Laffer drew it (which you have linked to) makes sense....but below the sidebar.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:ORDER is to put the image above the sidebar. I've made an image based on File:Laffer Curve.png crossed with File:Krzywa Laffera.svg and added it there. --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The wrong, left, and right sides of the curve.

[edit]

Overall, a well written article. I wouldn't change much. However, in the sections that discuss the peak of the curve, and whether a certain taxing example is on the left or right of it, those cases are worded confusingly and inconsistently. The most egregious examples would be the ones saying "wrong side of the curve". Understand those examples requires a lot of contextual understanding, and has the additional problem of passing a value judgement (which leads to an additional issue, that optimal tax rate is different and the target, but it's barely mentioned).

These sentences need to be more clearly and consistently worded. I favor a wording like "to the right of the curve's peak". Heavy Chaos (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree that "wrong side" is badly worded, and I've changed the two instances of it to "to the right of the peak". Feel free to change the less egregious examples of this. Endwise (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Quiggin quote

[edit]

I do not feel this edit is appropriate for this article. The quote added is by John Quiggin, who appears to be a middling academic with no special qualification or connection to the Laffer curve. Further, the quote itself tells us nothing of value about the laffer curve "the Laffer curve was "correct but unoriginal", but Laffer's analysis that the United States was to the right of the peak of the Laffer curve "was original but incorrect." What does this add? We already say earlier that Laffer was not the first person to notice the LC: "Laffer states that he did not invent the concept, citing numerous antecedents, including the Muqaddimah by 14th-century Islamic scholar Ibn Khaldun, John Maynard Keynes and Adam Smith." And the part about Laffer's analysis is irrelevant as the article is not about Laffer himself. For these reasons, i intend to remove this section once again. Bonewah (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source is a publication in a top-tier, peer-reviewed academic press (Princeton University Press) authored by an economics professor. The author has 23,000 citations on Google Scholar, which is far from middling. The quote is useful because it clarifies that there is neither nothing new or controversial about the curve itself – a lot of readers might be under the wrong impression that the curve itself is controversial or rejected by economists, which it is not. Rather, what is controversial is the applied use by the curve's proponent. thena (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no possibility that the reader will think the concept was new as the first sentence of the body of the article states that specifically with examples. Further, the next section immediately following the line is question spend the next 4 paragraphs listing precedents before Laffer. In case that is not enough, the lede states explicitly that the concept is not new. If readers are getting the impression that the curve itself is controversial or rejected by economists, then we should explicitly state that it is not, with a better citation/quote than one that says so in a backhanded way. As to Quiggin's credentials, meh. I still see nothing that distinguishes his as a source. Certainly nothing that overrides my concerns above. Bonewah (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what it adds either. I think it was in there at one point and someone took it out.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The quote seems properly attributed and sourced. It is an opinion on the article topic by a highly cited academic, according to Thenightaway, but more specifically, it reads more like a criticism. It would do fine in the criticism section. Cheers. DN (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because the 6 other times we say the exact same thing didnt get the point across? Bonewah (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see what you mean, however, there is already an existing quote by Quiggan in the Empirical Analysis section, with what looks like a earlier refutation by Goolsbee to this analysis. It appears to exclude Quiggan's take on the US being to the right of the peak as incorrect. It could probably be condensed and added there, which might give better context. See the condensed example below that combines current text in that section with the proposed wording. I have attempted to omit what seems to be the more repetitive aspect. Let me know if it makes more sense in this form.
  • A 1999 study by University of Chicago economist Austan Goolsbee, which examined major changes in high income tax rates in the United States from the 1920s onwards found no evidence that the United States was to the right of the peak of the Laffer curve. In 2010, John Quiggin wrote, "To the extent that there was an economic response to the Reagan tax cuts, and to those of George W. Bush twenty years later, it seems largely to have been a Keynesian demand-side response, to be expected when governments provide households with additional net income in the context of a depressed economy." According to Quiggin, Laffer's analysis that the United States was to the right of the peak of the Laffer curve is incorrect. Quiggin, John (2012-05-21). Zombie Economics. Princeton University Press. p. 142. doi:10.2307/j.ctt7rg7m. ISBN 978-1-4008-4208-7.
Cheers. DN (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note. The John Quiggin mentioned here is a WP editor who has created 106 articles on WP. He has made only one edit this year and says on his user page that he's "decided that too much participation in the project is bad for [his] mental health". Carlstak (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Im just not convinced that Quiggin nor his opinion is important here. It tells us nothing new and i see nothing in Quiggin's bio that makes his opinion useful here. Bonewah (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've made it clear the opinion of this highly cited economics expert appears irrelevant in your view, but since he is already quoted in the article it seems there is already some precedent for inclusion of his refutation to Goolsbee's opinion. DN (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merely being a 'highly quoted expert' doesnt change the fact that what is being added is redundant. Bonewah (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is his refutation of Goolsbee redundant? How many times is it mentioned in the article, and where? DN (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, i thought you were talking about the other Quiggin quote. I dont think much of this or of Goolsbee's study. Neither tell us much about the Laffer curve. The fact that some country may or may not be on the right side of the LC with one of its types of taxes isnt really that informative. The fact that another economist maybe doesnt agree tells me that neither piece of information should be included. Bonewah (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, i dont think we are representing the Goolsbee paper correctly. Ill have to read further, but i dont beleive that is the conclusion Goolsbee is making. The paper itself is pretty interesting, but i think its maybe a see also, further reading kind of thing rather than a citation for a simple claim. Bonewah (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]