The assertion that the peak of this curve is skewed towards the left (low tax rates), rather than the right (high rates)?
That is, that if the "job creators" don't keep enough of the margin on goods produced, they will just get pissed off, take their marbles and go home, rather than actually bothering to hire a few more people to grab additional marginal income?
The way the Laffer Curve was usually presented, was to give one the impression that there were marginal tax rates so high that they were somehow greater than 100% and ate into income earned at a lower marginal rate, which would otherwise have been retained had there been less of it.
Thus, "trickle down" being the idea that when the rich have more money, they will for some reason voluntarily use it to hire people to produce products and services, regardless of whether or not there is any actual demand, or anticipated demand, for them.
Yes, a marginal tax rate of 110% would be bad. Good thing we don't do that :-) (I guess I should be ready for some example from 1880 where combined locality through federal taxes did for some specific dollar amount - but hopefully such freaky exceptions don't really exist, or at least often enough to matter)
Edit: I realize that the Laffer Curve was primarily about tax revenues, BUT, a large component of the theory was that as the activity increased to generate the tax revenues, it was due to somebody doing the work that created the additional earnings.
There is a common misconception of the Laffer curve that is based on trying to interpret the data. However, what the Laffer curve demonstrates is that there is a curve, nothing else.
Please note that I do not consider anything from Wikipedia as evidence of anything, so if you are trying to get me to respond to something to do within a Wikipedia article, it just isn't going to happen. The number of times I have discovered serious issues with those articles, especially on political, philosophical, and academic topics is, frankly, disturbing.
There is a theory within some economic schools of thought that savings generates production, but this is not directly to do with tax rates or the Laffer curve, nor even rich people.
Thus, the "+". The article is fair in that regard - it's just an abstract curve, with no exact formula, let alone coefficients. In practice, though, when somebody brings up Laffer, they are going to claim constants that generate a curve that peaks with a low tax rate.
In one sense, you are likely right: there is probably no formal academic theory of "supply side economics. But we have been subject to hearing this interrelated line of argument over and over since Reagan.
Okay, there is no formal concept or hypothesis of trickle down economics. (However, most PhD economists use the phrase "economic theory," but you may have some insight into this that they have not yet been exposed to.)
Sure there is. The concept is that if you allow the richest to keep all their riches, they will spend it on things which will stimulate the rest of the economy. Of course, this has proven to be a seriously misguided theory, with the actual results being a lack of consumer spending and concentration of wealth to the wealthy. Is that succinct enough for you? Now, whether a bonafide economist came up with this, or RR just pulled it out of his butt is another question...
