Jack Horkheimer has died. Better known to late-night PBS viewers as the Star Gazer.
A sad day.
Steve: AKA "Star Hustler." From his heyday:
Laffer Curve
There is some buzz on the webs about the Laffer Curve. As the government increases a tax rate, at what point do revenues start to go down due to the decreasing tax base? Some economists weigh in here. Interesting reading. You can see a strong dichotomy in how the question is answered by conservative vs liberal economists. More discussion here.
I think the conservative economists make the most interesting points. Most important, they point out that the question depends on the time frame involved, and the effect on the growth rate of the tax base. Here is a Laffer curve I got from the very best of sources... pulled from my *ss. Click to enlarge! Heh.
The Laffer Curve is in blue. You can see that tax revenue starts out at zero, increases to peak around the 65% tax rate, then falls off to zero. Sixty-five percent is in line with some of the more liberal economists. You can see that at the maximum point, government is vacuuming up about 2/3rds of the tax base. The actual tax base has fallen a whopping 40%. Only a loony-lefty government would operate at such a point.
What about a more reasonable point, say around a 30% tax rate? What happens if we raise the rate to 40%? The Laffer curve shows that revenues increase by about 6%, with a similar percent decrease in the tax base. So it looks like the government can get more revenue by going from 30% to 40%.
But what about long term? What about the effect on growth of the tax base over time? Republican politicians usually talk about the effect on higher tax rates on entrepreneurs, saying they will be less willing to start that next business if rates go up. This sounds like a growth argument to me. Suppose that raising the tax rate from 30% to 40% decreases the growth rate from 4.2% annual to 3.6% annual. Again, I have used the very best of sources. The next figure (click to enlarge) shows the result.
The 30% policy is shown in green, the 40% in red. The solid lines are tax revenue, the dotten lines are the tax base. You can see that at year zero the red solid line lies above the green solid line, so revenue has increased. The downside is that the tax base has taken a hit. The red dotted line lies below the green dotted line. You can see that as the years progress, the difference between the red and green solid lines decays. Around 35 years, the government is getting less at 40% than it would have at 30%. Meanwhile, the effect on the tax base is quite pronounced. At 35 years, the 30% policy results in a tax base that is 25% bigger than under the 40% rate.
If you were going to choose between these policies, which seems more reasonable? To me, the two revenue curves look like they are basically right on top of each other, when compared to the much more substantial difference in the tax base curves. So, even though the more liberal economists may be right that the maximum of the Laffer curve is way up there around 65%, that doesn't necessarily mean that the conservatives don't have a valid point.
I think the conservative economists make the most interesting points. Most important, they point out that the question depends on the time frame involved, and the effect on the growth rate of the tax base. Here is a Laffer curve I got from the very best of sources... pulled from my *ss. Click to enlarge! Heh.
The Laffer Curve is in blue. You can see that tax revenue starts out at zero, increases to peak around the 65% tax rate, then falls off to zero. Sixty-five percent is in line with some of the more liberal economists. You can see that at the maximum point, government is vacuuming up about 2/3rds of the tax base. The actual tax base has fallen a whopping 40%. Only a loony-lefty government would operate at such a point.
What about a more reasonable point, say around a 30% tax rate? What happens if we raise the rate to 40%? The Laffer curve shows that revenues increase by about 6%, with a similar percent decrease in the tax base. So it looks like the government can get more revenue by going from 30% to 40%.
But what about long term? What about the effect on growth of the tax base over time? Republican politicians usually talk about the effect on higher tax rates on entrepreneurs, saying they will be less willing to start that next business if rates go up. This sounds like a growth argument to me. Suppose that raising the tax rate from 30% to 40% decreases the growth rate from 4.2% annual to 3.6% annual. Again, I have used the very best of sources. The next figure (click to enlarge) shows the result.
The 30% policy is shown in green, the 40% in red. The solid lines are tax revenue, the dotten lines are the tax base. You can see that at year zero the red solid line lies above the green solid line, so revenue has increased. The downside is that the tax base has taken a hit. The red dotted line lies below the green dotted line. You can see that as the years progress, the difference between the red and green solid lines decays. Around 35 years, the government is getting less at 40% than it would have at 30%. Meanwhile, the effect on the tax base is quite pronounced. At 35 years, the 30% policy results in a tax base that is 25% bigger than under the 40% rate.
If you were going to choose between these policies, which seems more reasonable? To me, the two revenue curves look like they are basically right on top of each other, when compared to the much more substantial difference in the tax base curves. So, even though the more liberal economists may be right that the maximum of the Laffer curve is way up there around 65%, that doesn't necessarily mean that the conservatives don't have a valid point.
Public Debt vs Vote for the O
I was reading this post by Chuck DeVore on Big Government:
And I thought I would do a scatter plot of each state's public debt versus its vote for Obama (click on image for bigger version):
It seems that while not all low-debt states were McCain states, all high-debt states were Obama states. And, the higher the debt, the greater the vote for Obama.
According to Moody’s, the average state per capita debt of the 28 Obama states is $1,728 while the average debt in the 22 McCain states is less than half, at $749. This information alone says a lot about voters and their attitude towards government and debt. Voters with a propensity to elect politicians who burden future generations who can’t yet vote with huge debts voted for Obama while fiscally responsible voters generally voted for McCain.
And I thought I would do a scatter plot of each state's public debt versus its vote for Obama (click on image for bigger version):
It seems that while not all low-debt states were McCain states, all high-debt states were Obama states. And, the higher the debt, the greater the vote for Obama.
School Closings
My hometown is mulling school closings. It seems enrollment is flat and state money is drying up.
See here. And here.
What a strange turn of events. I remember bond issues for school expansion a school generation ago or so. Are families just not having kids any more? I find it hard to believe that Shorewood's population is falling that much.
I suspect that one reason this is happening is that the Village has become dependent on State aid money. With that aid going down, it is suddenly "impossible" to go back to how it was before, with schools paid for with property taxes.
As for the possible solution, it seems to me that closing the Intermediate school is the best option. That was the way it was before the Intermediate school was built some time in the early 70s, I think. The high school might be crowded for a few years, but if the school enrollment is going down anyway, that problem will correct itself.
Ann says: Enrollment seems to be declining. The SHS has 637 students, or 155 per grade level. SIS has 287 students, 143 per grade level, and Lake Bluff and Atwater combined, with their kindergartens included, have 975, or 121 per level.
Of course, I'm pretty sure my SHS graduating class had between 120 and 130 students.
I'd be interested to see how many non-teaching staff the district has compared to back in the day. My guess is, like at the university level, the number of extraneous staff has grown over the years. When we were in high school, there was the janitorial staff, the VP and Principal, two or three office staff, a librarian or two, three counselors--and maybe a nurse. I'd be surprised if there weren't a lot more than that now.
See here. And here.
What a strange turn of events. I remember bond issues for school expansion a school generation ago or so. Are families just not having kids any more? I find it hard to believe that Shorewood's population is falling that much.
I suspect that one reason this is happening is that the Village has become dependent on State aid money. With that aid going down, it is suddenly "impossible" to go back to how it was before, with schools paid for with property taxes.
As for the possible solution, it seems to me that closing the Intermediate school is the best option. That was the way it was before the Intermediate school was built some time in the early 70s, I think. The high school might be crowded for a few years, but if the school enrollment is going down anyway, that problem will correct itself.
Ann says: Enrollment seems to be declining. The SHS has 637 students, or 155 per grade level. SIS has 287 students, 143 per grade level, and Lake Bluff and Atwater combined, with their kindergartens included, have 975, or 121 per level.
Of course, I'm pretty sure my SHS graduating class had between 120 and 130 students.
I'd be interested to see how many non-teaching staff the district has compared to back in the day. My guess is, like at the university level, the number of extraneous staff has grown over the years. When we were in high school, there was the janitorial staff, the VP and Principal, two or three office staff, a librarian or two, three counselors--and maybe a nurse. I'd be surprised if there weren't a lot more than that now.
