About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

Glenn Beck's laughable attempt to illustrate the Laffer curve

February 09, 2010 10:16 pm ET by Jeremy Holden

In order to attack progressive income tax rates, Glenn Beck tried his darndest to educate his followers about the Laffer curve, arguing that higher tax rates necessarily lead to reduced revenues:

BECK: It's called the Laffer curve. The higher the income tax, the less you pay.

He even attempted to illustrate what the Laffer curve would look like graphically:

laffer

The curve Beck drew would illustrate a relationship where, as tax rates increased, revenue would also increase approaching an undefined level represented by the Y axis. But since that graphic would completely undermine Beck's words, I'll assume he inverted the variables on either the X or the Y axis in order to show an inverse relationship between tax rates and revenue. But the logical outcome of that relationship would be that maximum revenue is obtained when income is taxed at a rate of zero percent.

The Laffer curve takes its name from economist Arthur Laffer, who reportedly illustrated the relationship between tax rates and revenue on a napkin:

Time's Justin Fox reported:

It's a saga that began in a bar near the White House on a December afternoon in 1974. Huddled at a meeting arranged by Wall Street Journal editorial writer Jude Wanniski were [Dick] Cheney, then the deputy chief of staff to Republican President Gerald Ford, and Laffer, who was teaching at the University of Chicago's business school after a stint in the Nixon White House. In trying to explain to Cheney why a tax hike mooted by the President might not be such a great idea, Laffer drew a chart on a napkin that showed government revenues increasing as the tax rate moved up from 0% but then turning around and heading back toward zero as it neared 100%.

So Laffer's original curve showed revenues increasing along with tax rates up to a certain point of maximum revenue, not -- as Beck indicated -- a more unidirectional relationship. A traditional representation of the Laffer curve is not the curve Beck drew, but rather a parabola:

laffer2

It should be noted that economists have criticized references to the Laffer curve as a justification for reducing income tax rates in the United States. In Peddling Prosperity: Economic Sense and Nonsense in an Age of Diminished Expectations, Paul Krugman wrote, "Nobody questions that something like the Laffer curve exists; but even the supply-siders are skeptical about whether the U.S. economy is really in the 'backward-sloping' section."

At this point, I guess we have surpassed the information-maximizing point on the Glenn Beck show.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by mmfa.fan (February 09, 2010 10:22 pm ET)
      7  
      More edumacation from the uneducated. Sad that people look to this man to inform them.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by magnolialover (February 09, 2010 10:48 pm ET)
      1  
      So, if the graph is to be believed, then the BEST situation would be a tax rate of 50%.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by EmacsRazor (February 10, 2010 12:08 am ET)
        2  
        You aren't thinking about it correctly. The chart doesn't have 100% at the far right, what the graph suggests is that there is a maximum rate at which you can tax people before they either, don't think it's worth it to earn more money or they start to evade paying. Finding that "magic" rate isn't as easy as you just suggested.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by oscar the grouch (February 10, 2010 12:24 am ET)
           
        In the perfect world with a perfect curve, 50% may be right. But would that take into account the effect of state taxes also? And I think a lot of us would say that a 50% top marginal rate could be ok, except for the fact, that at the present time, that still wouldn't balance the budget unless it applied to the top 10-15% of tax filers and not just the top 1-2%. Another problem would probably occur when the increased revenues were used to expand programs rather than paying down the debt. Right now, the US is spending somewhere around %500 Million per day on interest (would pay insurance premiums for a lot of uninsured in short order). The high inflation of the late 70s put a lot of pressure on Federal Budgets, tax cuts (even with subsequent tax increases) allowed the creation of a lot of capital that was used to fuel the dot.con bubble, increasing revenues and allowing the federal budget to be balanced with small (relative) surpluses for a couple of years in the late 90s. Those were good times and we all tended to overlook the fact that our economy runs in cycles. Many of us nearing retirement age have some apprehension that another cycle of high inflation will make what we have scrimped and saved for for retirement worth little as we need it.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (February 10, 2010 12:35 am ET)
        3  
        This graph doesn't GO from 0 to 100 in necessarily a linear path - it could be a distorted parabola. No one really knows exactly where the maximum is or how steep the sides of the parabola will be.

        This is just one possible curve one could see. It's almost certainly not THE curve one would see.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Ouroborus (February 10, 2010 8:22 am ET)
          3  
          Not only that, but the purpose of using the curve would be to lower taxes when to the right of the apex, and increase them when to the left of it, in order to reach the optimum efficiency.

          Who ever heard of a GOPer proposing a tax increase for efficiency? Their economic 'plans' would keep cutting taxes until the upper 1% actually get subsidies.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Jurgan (February 10, 2010 3:37 pm ET)
               
            Exactly. The Laffer curve makes perfect sense in principle. The problem is that the people who bring it up ALWAYS assume we're on the right side. They'll say things like "it's been proven that lowering taxes increases revenue." What they leave out is "...sometimes."
            Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (February 10, 2010 9:01 am ET)
          3  
          I think you're right. There are so many variables involved that it is probably impossible to illustrate it accurately with any kind of graph.

          The Republicans have built a fantasy around the Laffer Curve, and you'll frequently hear them say that lowering taxes increases Federal Revenue. In some rare cases that may be true, but generally speaking, it's a myth.

          They like to point to the 80s as "proof", stating proudly that Federal Revenues doubled after Reagan's tax cuts. What they leave out is that it took about ten years for them to double, and Federal Revenues have doubled roughly every ten years since WWII anyway.

          So, there is no real evidence that cutting taxes raises revenues.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by MiG (February 10, 2010 12:39 am ET)
           
        Not really. There are no values on either the X or the Y axis. No one knows were the revenue maximum point is. I doubt that anyone would seriously argue that the US has reached the revenue decline region. Some Scandinavian countries have from time to time reached tax rates in the 70% range and not reached the decline region.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by MiG (February 10, 2010 12:40 am ET)
           
        Not really. There are no values on either the X or the Y axis. No one knows were the revenue maximum point is. I doubt that anyone would seriously argue that the US has reached the revenue decline region. Some Scandinavian countries have from time to time reached tax rates in the 70% range and not reached the decline region.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by j238 (February 10, 2010 10:52 am ET)
        1  
        The graph doesn't have an X axis, so we can't pick any particular percentage as an optimum point.

        The concept of the curve is correct.

        The issue is are we on the right-hand side or not? Supply-siders always argue that we are, therefore we should lower-taxes. People concerned with balancing the budget usually say the opposite.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by steeve (February 09, 2010 11:07 pm ET)
      4  
      For the record, I support any tax rate that produces a good economy with jobs that doesn't bust the budget or crush the lives of millions of poor people.

      But in real life, the top tax rate has been 39.6% or higher every time those things were true.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by whatIthink (February 09, 2010 11:25 pm ET)
      7 1
      Yeah, I think pretty much all the Beck lovers were lost at the first mention of "Y axis".

      Why you can't describe the Laffer curve to Beckerheads:

      See guys, in a two dimensional graph, you have one axis called "Y" and another axis called "X"...crap, hold on...

      See, an axis is a line that bisects a two dimensional body or figure....crap, okay..

      See, bisects means to cut or divide something into two parts....

      No, no, no, nothing is REALLY getting cut, put the damn knife down. In this case it means to divide....

      No, divide in this case is not about liberals. We're talking about mathematics...sorry...MATH here...

      Yes, I know they called it 'rithmetic where you went to school, but the real term is "mathematics."

      No, it's not part of some liberal, socialist, communist plot to rename education, that's what's it's always been called.

      Yes, I know the consitution says nothing about math, but we're not talking about civics, we're talking about math.

      ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jimieli (February 09, 2010 11:46 pm ET)
      1  
      Shhh...The sheep are getting their learn on, from "Professor Beck"....rotflmao
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Guppies (February 10, 2010 1:13 am ET)
         
      "Everyone" complained - more hyperbole from the expert on distortion. Personally, I think Wilson gets his butt kicked because he is one of the few Presidents that is not studied in depth, hence Glenda's ability to lead his sheep.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by davemccarthymusic9410 (February 10, 2010 6:19 am ET)
         
      maybe David Stockman could come on the show and help him out.

      Oh,wait! Never mind....
      Report Abuse
    • Author by epkklk851 (February 10, 2010 10:21 am ET)
      1  
      G.H.W. Bush said it best back in 1980-"VooDoo Economics". According to James K. Galbraith, only the academic Supply-Siders are the still spouting this stuff. Real economist abandoned Supply-Side and Laffer years ago.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by paul8616 (February 10, 2010 11:42 am ET)
         
      At least Howard Beale was smart.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Rock_Knutne (February 10, 2010 3:05 pm ET)
          1
        Thank God you Kool Aid drinkers don't get it yet...More Scott Browns in your future because of it.

        God bless Glenn Beck!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Rock_Knutne (February 10, 2010 3:14 pm ET)
        2
      Great to see you Koolaid drinkers still don't get it... it only means there are many more Scott Browns in your future.

      God Bless Glenn Beck!
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

About the Blog

Feed Icon
  • County Fair is a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary, breaking news and rapid response updates to major media events from Media Matters senior fellows and other staff.