.
[1] https://www.cooley.com/news/insight/2020/2020-08-06-fcc-rule...
[2] https://www.dwt.com/insights/2018/10/fcc-adopts-final-licens...
If it has to be recognised annually then roughly $70B/10-15 years is the annual value.
Was pretty shocked when I saw this because the corporate rate cut was huge. Perhaps offset by SALT changes
Need to find a good post hoc analysis of how revenue ended up higher.
Also weird side note, Arthur Laffer is in his 80s but sounds/looks in his 60s in his interviews. Kind of amazing!
If it was primarily due to one time realizations, you would expect a spurt shortly afterwards, followed by decline.
The 2017 tax change pulled taxes forward from subsequent years.
Tax revenues in the year after the the Trump tax cuts (the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act) did indeed rise (FY2018). That being said, much of that was attributable to economic growth and inflation. The real question is what would revenue have been had the TCJA not been passed? It's obviously impossible to answer a counterfactual, but the Congressional Budget Office's predictions for 2018 taxes - made before the tax cuts were passed - were $276bn higher than actual receipts. These predictions ended up being pretty close to accurate for types of taxes that weren't affected by the TCJA, so it's a good ballpark.
To be honest, I would have expected a much bigger decline
> Lookup ‘laffer curve’ for the explanation. Essentially, decreasing the tax rate incentivized more participants into the market and incentivized existing participants too
I doubt that was what was going on there. IIRC, the "Laffer Curve" is some neat BS that's mainly useful to sell tax cuts, but all those tax cuts never resulted in the greater revenue the curve predicted.
Maybe there's some truth to the curve when effective tax rates are 90%, but that's not the world we live in.
"Intuitive" does not necessarily imply "true." Some of the most pernicious false ideas are ones that have an intuitive appeal (especially in an oversimple example scenario).
The Laffer curve likely falls into something like that category. If it has any truth to it, it's in conditions that don't actually exist (like an effective 90% tax rate).
It (and “supply-side economics” in general) is not a serious economic theory.
Well, also the usual one-dimensional presentation of the tax-policy space that goes with the curve, but that's not so much contentious as obviously wrong.
The people who think it is important tend to have a religious faith that the status quo is in a space where decrease of taxes in any aspect of tax policy moves is back toward the maximum, which, even if you accept the existence of the Laffer Curve, is a claim which needs a lot of justification which is never offered.
If you get paid $300 today to settle a $600 debt due next year, you haven't made yourself richer. You've essentially sold an asset at a discount.
Surely some portion of that behavior played into the numbers, but tax receipts basically just stalled for one year, and then continued on their normal growth trajectory.
If the effect were large, you would expect a decline in revenues in subsequent years.