The question should not be "How much can the government tax before it becomes detrimental?" The question should "How much is the minimum amount of tax revenue the government needs to cover necessary spending?"

Two points. First when it comes to where the rate should be we have an interesting reference point. No matter what situation we were in (war, depression, prosperity, etc.) or what the tax codes were federal revenue has NEVER exceeded 19% of GDP and has never been lower than 15% of GDP since the start of 20th century. Therefore, if you want to grow federal revenue you grow the economy. The government has never grown the economy through high taxes. There is pattern of lowering taxes stimulating growth, though. Secondly, their insistence we raise taxes to pay for things ASSUMES the government is the best entity to fix those problems. Many of us who oppose tax hikes and growth of government do so because we honestly believe government is NOT the best entity to fix those problems. There are examples in history of where the government trying to fix something made things worse than if they hadn't acted at all. As well as examples of government inaction that led to a historically fast recovery.

face it -we cannot spend our way to prosperity, especially when a highly inefficient bureaucratic government will spend $2 dollars for each $1 dollar they distribute to specific groups just to stay in power. The other issue is that the government focuses on confiscating money for optics rather than on job growth.

The very first words out of the host's mouth contain a false premise. He stated that the rich "aren't doing anything productive" with their money. As a matter of fact, no billionaire is stuffing his money in a mattress. Their money is in investments: in stocks to fund the growth of private business, in bonds to finance debt for various projects including municipals, in newspapers and charitable foundations. Sure, they've got sports teams too, and society has indicated quite clearly that they want that. But the idea that the government could actually use that money more productively than the people who earned it is a fantasy disproved by hundreds of years of experience to the contrary. It is simply the politics of envy and excuses for confiscation.

What none of the punditry seem to understand is that bureaucratic government is the absolute worst manager of any source of revenue. It takes decades for even a local government to repair a road, yet private companies build massive toll roads for hundreds of miles in no time. If you gave government 100% of revenue, there would still be "poor" people. Ever heard of Soviet Russia or modern China? I've seen people in Beijing who were far poorer than villagers in Bangladesh. Taxes should be paid yes but they will not end poverty.

Cut spending and tax rates won't matter nearly as much as they do because of yearly deficit spending.

Lot a people at CNBC just can't learn the lessons of the past.

"Moving some of the wealth that the rich people have that they don't use for anything productive" is the original argument in this conversation. I get that when people talk about solving the issue of poverty or lack of resources, the "solution" that's most tempting and probably easiest too (for those asking for or doing the confiscation) is to Robin Hood our way around the issue, stealing from those who have more and giving to those who have less. Logistically, you're asking for the worst managers of wealth in all eras (the federal government) to solve a money issue by stealing and redistributing. They've been struggling to manage money since the beginning of time. You can't possibly be a good manager when the game is rigged in your favor, when the rules don't apply to you, and when you're given the green light to bully everyone else into giving you their money with threats of institutional violence (aka robbery), and then using it however you see fit during your term, even throwing current and future generations into a debt pit whose depth reaches the core of the Earth. Entire revolutions throughout history have been started for much less than what these guys do, without a need to throw rocks at a great distance, we could say, uh, the American Revolution for example. Ethically, how do you enforce "Moving some of the wealth that the rich people have that they don't use for anything productive"? Who decides how much is too much, and how you should use your own money if you want to avoid having it confiscated? Even if you try this absurdity, if you tell the wealthy "if you don't use this money we'll just take it and redistribute it", don't you think for a second at least that right after you say that, the wealthy aren't going to put that money to work? Usually the wealthy are wealthy because they make their money work.... their money funds existing companies, new companies, debt service, projects of all kinds.

instead of stealing a fish from a rich man why not just give out fishing poles?

Always wanting other people's money. Gawd forbid we talk about the insane amount of money our government spends/wastes ($6.5 trillion- 2024) and only bringing in $4.6 trillion.

Art Laffer : The guy who said a recession wasn't going to happen in 2008. I guess CNBC thinks Americans have a short memory.

"The best you can do for the economics is to reduce taxes for billionaires. And if you have any doubts - ask a billionare!" Jonathan Pie

Does this guy thinks we’re idiots. How is he taken seriously. He used 1929 as an example. You know what else happened in 1929? Jeez.

The problem isn't how to tax the rich or the working class. The problem is state and federal spending, That's the problem. People who have no idea running a state or a country that has never even ran a simple business. In CA we went from the end of 22 with a hundred billion surplus to 2 months into 23 with a 25 billion deficit. Did the roads get better? NO we got more "government" up our butts more crime, more homeless, and more welfare. These text book geniuses and common sense idiot running not only the state but the federal government are crooks. Where else can you become a congressman or senator on 175-200K a year and in the length of 4-6 years become a millionaire? The person making the same money don't become millionaires in the same time frame. The government are filled with crooks. Rules for us but not for them. We've seen this time after time. Then we have interviewers that ask some of the stupidest questions. If we could hear Arts thought? I think it would be hilarious.

The smuggest part of the interview is at about 6:35. You don't need me to explain it....just watch.

Says the ultra rich himself

Asking Art Laffer, the perpetrator of Reaganomics and trickle-down is like asking the fox to how best to guard the chicken coop.

Confíscate money that is not yours? The notion that we can simply take away money from a person or group of people who earn large amounts has no valid consciousness. These people are not out there telling you that you can’t earn as much as them. We live in a capitalist society, I’m pretty sure that’s what the founding fathers intended, not theft. What law prohibits you from earning as much as your next door neighbor? Through the history of economics we have seen the virtues of productivity specially when aligned with job market creators. I think Dr. Laffer is on a right track, or at least has a more feasible proposition than to create disproportionate tax disparities / or stealing money.

Thats why the only way to deal with this problem is to raise capital gains taxes to 70%. If you want passive income youre going to pay for it. No one can escape it.

This discussion is framed in a wrong way. It has never been about punctuating the of notion success. Think about it, money management firms constantly help the rich to get richer. Billionaire philanthropists work hard to open our borders. Every time banks run into trouble it's always the hard tax paying citizen that bails them out. It's not about stopping rich peoples shopping habits, it's about making them take responsibility for what is best for the society as such.

Tax unproductive wealth? Billionaires don't keep their money in a sock. If they buy a yacht, workers build, operate, & maintain it. The same people apoplectic about ostentatious wealth bemoan the loss of jobs when manufacturers of luxuries downsize or bankrupt. Sorry, pick a theme.

You dont get rich by making the rich poorer.

The jury is in and the Laffer curve doesn't work.

How about we not look to the fed govt to solve the problems?

The step up basis is to treat cash and property other than cash equally.

Well, he fails to mention that Reagan just after that massive tax cut he had to increase it slowly year after year during his presidency to reduce deficit. The real problem in the United-states is that tax revenue is politicized. It's not anymore a concern of just finding the right amount of tax of every one and every sector.

They take advantage of the tax code? So why not fix the tax code?

Shareholders need to learn how to enrich themselves by CONTRIBUTING to the success of the businesses they own. Simply having OWNERSHIP does not contribute to a businesses success. Stockholders must, at some level, take responsibility and accountability for a businesses successes and failures. Businesses rely on the work and dedication of the people CONTRIBUTING! from the janitor to the CEO.

did this guy give Peter his penny

It should be pointed out there is value alone in reduction of inequality. And that the rich mostly earn what they have is at least questionable

The problem with this country is the existence of the middle class. 🙃

That guy's hair...

Except with the flat tax, it hurts the poor people more than it hurts the rich people. That’s a proven fact.

Switzerland has a wealth tax which is not avoided.

Flat tax?????