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.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government in its series Working Paper Series with number
rwp08-056.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: ().
Related research
Keywords:
Find related papers by JEL classification: E62 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Macroeconomic Policy, Macroeconomic Aspects of Public Finance, and General Outlook - - - Fiscal Policy
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports: