Editing Arthur Laffer (section)

==Laffer curve==
{{Main|Laffer curve}}
[[File:Laffer curve.svg|thumb|upright=1.2|A basic representation of a Laffer curve, plotting government revenue (R) against the tax rate (t) and showing the maximum revenue at t*]]
Although Laffer does not claim to have invented the Laffer curve concept,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170207000153/http://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future|url-status=unfit|archive-date=February 7, 2017|title=The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future|first=Arthur|last=Laffer|website=The Heritage Foundation|date=June 1, 2004}}</ref> it was popularized with policymakers following an afternoon meeting Laffer had with Nixon/Ford Administration officials [[Dick Cheney]] and [[Donald Rumsfeld]] in 1974 in which he reportedly sketched the curve on a napkin to illustrate his argument.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.polyconomics.com/gallery/Napkin003.jpg |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110503200219/http://www.polyconomics.com/gallery/Napkin003.jpg |archive-date=May 3, 2011 |title= To Donald Rumsfeld |publisher=Polyconomics.com |access-date=December 13, 2012}}</ref>  The term "Laffer curve" was coined by [[Jude Wanniski]], who was also present. The basic concept was not new; Laffer himself says he learned it from [[Ibn Khaldun]] and [[John Maynard Keynes]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future |title=The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future |publisher=Heritage.org |access-date=December 13, 2012 |archive-date=July 23, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110723124419/http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/06/The-Laffer-Curve-Past-Present-and-Future |url-status=unfit }}</ref>

The [[Laffer curve]] is an [[economic theory]] that shows the relationship between tax rates and the amount of tax revenue collected by governments. The Laffer Curve shows that there is a certain point between 0% and 100% where tax revenues are maximized. The curve suggests that starting from zero, an increase in tax rates will increase the government's tax revenue; after a certain point, however, continuing to increase tax rates will cause a decrease in tax revenue.<ref name="auto1"/> This decrease in tax revenue can be explained by decreased incentives for work, production, etc.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|url=https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp|title=Laffer Curve|last=Kenton|first=Will|website=Investopedia|access-date=January 28, 2019|archive-date=January 29, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190129064140/https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp|url-status=live}}</ref> Laffer's postulate was that the tax rate that maximizes revenue was at a much lower level than previously believed: so low that current tax rates were above the level where revenue is maximized. While many [[economist]]s believe that government spending to stimulate demand for products should be the solution for a poorly performing economy, Laffer argues that heavy taxes and regulation impede production, and therefore, government revenue.<ref name=":2" />

Numerous leading economists have rejected the view that a tax rate cut of current federal [[Income tax in the United States|U.S. income taxes]] can lead to increased tax revenue. When asked in a 2012 [[University of Chicago Booth School of Business|University of Chicago business school]] survey whether a "cut in federal income tax rates in the US right now would raise taxable income enough so that the annual total tax revenue would be higher within five years than without the tax cut", none of the economists surveyed agreed and 71% disagreed.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Popp Berman |first1=Elizabeth |title=Trump is giving Arthur Laffer the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Economists aren't smiling |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/01/trump-is-giving-arthur-laffer-presidential-medal-freedom-economists-arent-laughing/ |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |date=June 1, 2019 |access-date=July 7, 2021 |archive-date=February 6, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210206133554/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/01/trump-is-giving-arthur-laffer-presidential-medal-freedom-economists-arent-laughing/ |url-status=live }}</ref> According to [[Greg Mankiw]], most economists have been very skeptical of Laffer's contention that decreases in tax rates could increase tax revenue, at least in the United States. In his textbook, Mankiw states, "there was little evidence for Laffer's view that U.S. tax rates had in fact reached such extreme levels."<ref name="mankiw">{{cite book | title=Principles of Economics | publisher=Cengage | author=Mankiw, Greg | author-link=Greg Mankiw | year=2014 | pages=164–165}}</ref> Under the direction of conservative economist [[Douglas Holtz-Eakin]], the [[Congressional Budget Office]] conducted a 2005 study on the fiscal effects of a 10% cut in federal income tax rates, finding that it resulted in a significant net revenue loss.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/business/23leonhardt.html|title=Weighing a McCain Economist|first=David|last=Leonhardt|date=April 23, 2008|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=April 18, 2019|archive-date=December 22, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221222094218/https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/business/23leonhardt.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/109th-congress-2005-2006/reports/12-01-10percenttaxcut.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221105062357/https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/109th-congress-2005-2006/reports/12-01-10percenttaxcut.pdf |title=Analyzing the Economic and Budgetary Effects of a 10 Percent Cut in Income Tax Rates|date= December 1, 2005|archive-date= November 5, 2022|website=[[Congressional Budget Office]] }}</ref> Economist [[John Quiggin]] distinguishes between the Laffer curve and Laffer's analysis of tax rates, writing that the Laffer curve was "correct but unoriginal" and that Laffer's analysis that the United States was on the wrong side of the Laffer curve "was original but incorrect."<ref name=":3">{{Cite book|last=Quiggin|first=John|title=Zombie Economics|date=2012-05-21|publisher=Princeton University Press|isbn=978-1-4008-4208-7|pages=142|doi=10.2307/j.ctt7rg7m}}</ref>

Laffer was an economic adviser to Kansas Governor [[Sam Brownback]], who in 2012 zeroed out state tax liability for approximately 330,000 of the top wage earners in the state, called the [[Kansas experiment]], contending it would be a "shot of adrenaline into the heart of the Kansas economy."<ref>Topeka Capital Journal, 2013</ref><ref name=Gale>{{cite web|author=William G. Gale|url=https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/what-congressional-tax-cutters-can-learn-kansas|title=What Congressional Tax Cutters Can Learn From Kansas|date=November 29, 2017|publisher=Tax Policy Center|access-date=April 16, 2019|archive-date=December 24, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221224003234/https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/what-congressional-tax-cutters-can-learn-kansas|url-status=live}}</ref> Laffer was paid $75,000 to advise in the creation of Brownback's tax cut plan, and gave Brownback his full endorsement, stating that what Brownback was doing was "truly revolutionary"<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Alvord|first=Daniel R.|date=2020-03-01|title=What Matters to Kansas: Small Business and the Defeat of the Kansas Tax Experiment|journal=Politics & Society|language=en|volume=48|issue=1|pages=27–66|doi=10.1177/0032329219894788|issn=0032-3292|doi-access=free}}</ref> and would bring "enormous prosperity" to Kansas.<ref name=Gale/> The state, which had previously had a budget surplus, experienced a budget deficit of about $200 million in 2012. Drastic cuts to state funding for education and infrastructure were implemented to close budget deficits and the Kansas economy underperformed relative to neighboring states.<ref>Kansas City Star, 2015</ref> Brownback's tax overhaul was described in a June 2017 article in ''[[The Atlantic]]'' as the United States' "most aggressive experiment in conservative economic policy".<ref name="theatlantic_tax_experiment_dead_2017">{{cite news |work=[[The Atlantic]] |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/kansass-conservative-tax-experiment-is-dead/529551/ |title=The Death of Kansas's Conservative Experiment |date=June 7, 2017 |access-date=June 7, 2017 |first=Russell |last=Berman |archive-date=June 12, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170612210830/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/kansass-conservative-tax-experiment-is-dead/529551/ |url-status=live }}</ref> The drastic tax cuts had "threatened the viability of schools and infrastructure" in Kansas. A supermajority of lawmakers in the Kansas legislature, both Democrats and Republicans, repealed the tax cut in June 2017, overriding Brownback's veto.<ref name="theatlantic_tax_experiment_dead_2017"/>