The Laffer Curve Is No Longer a Punch Line

For years it was a punch line. Now the Laffer Curve — which purports to show that tax cuts can increase revenue — is making a kind of comeback. This time around, it is providing more of an intellectual than a policy framework, but that is a useful role as some states and city governments appear eager to test the proposition that no tax is too high.

Famously (or infamously?) drawn on a napkin by the economist Art Laffer in 1974, the Laffer Curve is a concave shape plotting the relationship between tax revenues and the tax rate. It shows that at a certain point, tax cuts lead to greater revenue. When the tax rate is too high, people work less, thus reducing tax revenue.

The Laffer Curve was part of the justification for the tax reform of the 1980s, which lowered rates and got rid of many deductions. But then a funny thing happened: Revenue fell after the tax cuts. There are plenty of rationales for cutting taxes, such as efficiency or fairness, but more revenue did not appear to be one of them.

Still, thoughtful skeptics admit that the Laffer Curve illustrates a valid point. Consider what would happen if people were taxed at 150%, so they had to give up not only all the money they earned but also another 50%. The answer is obvious: No one would work. The practical problem now, however, is that with the federal income tax rate topping out at 37%, the US is not close to the point where it would get revenue increases from a tax cut.

BB laffer curve

That’s true for income taxes. What about wealth taxes? The Laffer Curve could kick in much sooner for taxes on wealth, because it is relatively easy for people to change how and where they invest. State tax rates are more than federal rates because it is easier to move to another state than to another country.