Nor should the argument seem strange that taxation may be so high as to defeat its object, and that, given sufficient time to gather the fruits, a reduction of taxation will run a better chance than an increase of balancing the budget. For to take the opposite view today is to resemble a manufacturer who, running at a loss, decides to raise his price, and when his declining sales increase the loss, wrapping himself in the rectitude of plain arithmetic, decides that prudence requires him to raise the price still more–and who, when at last his account is balanced with nought on both sides, is still found righteously declaring that it would have been the act of a gambler to reduce the price when you were already making a loss.
That\’s how the new Adam Smith Inst report on the tax system starts out.
Well worth reading. Do look to pages 24-28, where they estimate the losses to HMRC from the 50% tax rate. £350 billion to £650 billion.
YVMV but it\’s not an unreasonable set of calculations. Certainly, to reject it, you\’ll need to do more than just \”there is no Laffer Curve\” for as Ol\’ JMK above points out, there most certainly is, it\’s just a matter of where it is not whether.
One of the delights of course is that it repudiates (and refutes, but then I would say that wouldn\’t I?) every single tax proposal Ritchie has made.