The Laffer Curve is no longer a punch line

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.

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 sensitive than federal rates because it is easier to move to another state than to another country.

Nonetheless, states and cities are eyeing very high tax rates. In California, a 5% tax on fortunes of $1 billion may get on the ballot in the fall. Yet research by Josh Rauh of the Hoover Institution estimates it would decrease tax revenues by $24.7 billion. That's because rich people will move, and the state will lose both the prospective tax revenue from their wealth and the existing tax revenue from their income. An earlier paper estimates that California's high income taxes have already caused some high earners to leave the state.

Now Washington State is trying a similar experiment. Washington has long been a no- earned-income-tax state, which attracted many tech businesses such as Amazon and Microsoft. Its House of Representatives just passed a 9.9% tax on income above $1 million, which may have already encouraged some wealthy residents to move. It may not reduce tax revenues immediately, but it will probably reduce property tax revenues and discourage future business creation, which could lead to slower growing tax revenue.

History suggests that once a state imposes an income tax, it does not stay contained to high earners. Losing its status as one of nine no-income-tax states — Washington taxes income from capital gains but not from wages or salary — would erode one of the state's a comparative advantages (and it lacks California's gorgeous weather). New York State is also considering higher taxes on higher earners, while New York City's mayor is proposing several new taxes on the wealthy.

Supporters of high taxes say they are calling the wealthy's bluff: Are they really prepared to leave California or Manhattan? And for years it was true, high earners in high-tax states such as New York or California did not leave for Texas or Florida. But that's changing. Maybe that's because blue states aren't offering the same level of services they used to, whether it's in schools or transportation, while quality-of-life crime such as shoplifting is up in cities like New York. Or maybe it's because network effects aren't as strong as they used to be; living in close proximity to the center of finance or technology isn't so valuable as to be worth the higher taxes.

All of which means that point on the Laffer Curve where higher taxes result in lower revenue could hit a lot sooner than many states and cities realize.

(COMMENT, BELOW)

Allison Schrager, a Bloomberg columnist, is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal.

Previously:
• Yes, Americans are saving enough for retirement
• Is free trade worth the cost in lives lost?
• Mamdani's New York is flirting with fiscal nihilism
• America's human capital is eroding
• Musk is wrong about AI and retirement --- You still need to save
• Go ahead and resent boomers but for the right reasons
• Raiding your 401(k) to buy a house should be an option
• Americans are living in the worst of all tax worlds
• Think of college like you would a junk bond
• The economy needs a little bit of unfairness
• The pension revolution is better for savers
• Affordability isn't a hoax. It's not a crisis for most, either
• America gets retirement wrong. Can Vanguard fix that?
• The American middle class is shrinking, and that's OK
• Want to buy a home? It's OK to wait till you're 40
• Mamdani is benefiting from New York City's changing workforce
• How can an economy this good feel this bad?
• Why boomers have more money than everyone else
• Democratize private investment?
• Lab-grown diamonds are testing the power of markets
• Inflation ate your free lunch, but you're still better off
• Good debt? Bad debt? There's no such thing
• Megabills didn't break the economy before and won't now
• America's broken politics is breaking economics, too
• A college degree is no longer a risk-free investment
• Break up Columbia? Maybe, and the rest of the Ivy League, too
• Even Dems might like MAGA accounts
• Reality Check about possibile volatility in trade war
• Is this really how American exceptionalism ends?
• The free-market conservative is a vanishing breed
• Shareholder capitalism is back
• Europe's risk aversion comes with consequences
• The Oxford curriculum that American universities need
• Private equity won't diversify your portfolio
• The era of declining interest rates may have come to an end, and many investors don't seem to realize it
• This one weird trick could save the U.S. economy
• The Fed's damage to the housing market may last years
• The future of unions looks very different
• To bring back the office, bring back lunch
• Does it really matter who gets into Harvard?
• Our pensions shouldn't be used to juice the economy
• A soft landing won't mean the economy is safe
• The 30-year mortgage is saving the U.S. economy … or is it?
• The one true secret to successful investing
• Less work, more burn-out
• When did risk become a bad word in the U.S.?
• AI-proofing your career starts in college
• Biden has to learn the same lesson as SVB
• Say it with Rubio: Changing clocks is stupid
• Sure, we'll return to the office in 2023 but not to stores
• How to manage the biggest risk of all: Uncertainty
• If you think U.S. pensions are safe, just wait
• Harry and Meghan and the perils of superstar culture
• Norman Rockwell's economy is never coming back
• Burned by crypto? Don't learn the wrong lesson
• Quiet Quitters are looking in the wrong place for meaningful work
• America's MBAs are the latest skeptics of capitalism
• Generation Z is getting a harsh lesson in stock risk
• The biggest threat to the U.S. economy is policymakers
• Buck up, boomers. You're still better off than your parents
• How to manage the biggest risk of all: uncertainty
• Startup boom is the kind of risk-taking Americans need
• Gen Z is too compliant to achieve greatness
• A bigger child tax credit isn't the poverty solution we need
• Finding your power in a higher-priced world
• The Biden administration's plans to double the tax rate on capital gains will prove costly to all Americans, not just the wealthy
• WARNING: Feel Good Now --- Pay Later: Stimulus is crammed with goodies but makes no economic sense
• The 'Stakeholder' Fallacy: Joe Biden's vision of capitalism is a recipe for failure