Snake-Oil Tax Cuts

Jeffrey Frankel

Working Paper Series from Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government

Abstract: Two theoretical propositions have played important roles in the thinking of U.S. presidents enacting large tax cuts since 1981. The first, often known as the Laffer Hypothesis, claims that reductions in marginal tax rates stimulate economic activity so much as to raise overall tax revenue. The second, often known as the Starve the Beast Hypothesis, claims that tax reductions, by depriving the government of revenue, lead to reductions in government spending. This paper reviews the conceptual arguments and available empirical evidence on these two propositions. The two contradict each other. Despite this, both run counter to most of the evidence, at least for the case of the United States.

JEL-codes: E62 H20 H30 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2008-10
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-pub
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (7)

Downloads: (external link)
https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/work ... ?PubId=5975&type=WPN

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ecl:harjfk:rwp08-056

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Working Paper Series from Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by ().