The Examiner published a guest column by attorney Steve Krueger (Aug. 14, “Raising taxes just makes for less investment”), who wrote in opposition to a Scripps Howard News Service editorial (Aug. 3, “We can’t cut both taxes and deficit”).
To the editor:
The Examiner published a guest column by attorney Steve Krueger (Aug. 14, “Raising taxes just makes for less investment”), who wrote in opposition to a Scripps Howard News Service editorial (Aug. 3, “We can’t cut both taxes and deficit”). I honor his right to an opinion, but I am disappointed in his effort to set forth his position. It seems that it was nothing more than a regurgitation of politics as usual, with nothing new or thoughtful.
Steve makes reference to Arthur Laffer, the noted “supply side” economist and originator of the “Laffer Curve.” That curve is a 1974 theoretical representation of tax revenues raised as a result of individual tax rates ranging from a low of 0 percent to a high of 100 percent. According to the curve, maximum tax revenues seem to result from a tax rate around 50 percent. The graph Krueger chose to print seems to support that assumption, and shows diminishing tax revenues (as a percent of GDP) once rates dropped below 50 percent. And still he promotes continuing to cut taxes?
Similarly, he tries to make his point by reciting the luxury tax on yachts and the 1963 JFK tax cuts! Give me a break! Try some original thought.
Look, here’s the key: He wants to point to the relatively constant tax receipts (1978 through 2007) after tax rates are reduced, but conveniently fails to mention that our national debt increased twelvefold over the same period, going from $789 billion (Dec. 31, 1978) to $9.229 trillion (Dec. 31, 2007).
It would seem to me that Mr. Krueger is merely proving the premise of the editorial – “We can’t cut both taxes and deficit.” It would seem to me Mr. Krueger doesn’t really want to solve the problem, but merely wants to continue down this path of economic self-destruction.