Laffer and Moore on state income taxes . . .
Art Laffer, of Laffer Curve-fame and president of Laffer Associates, and James Moore, a member of the WSJ's editorial board, take a sharp tone in their discussion of the impacts of state income taxes on economic growth. Check it out here.
They cite some figures and employ quotable phrases about how states have suffered from passing “soak-the-rich” laws like the Buffett Rule.
The authors judiciously wait until the end of their piece to acknowledge that low-tax states don't always outperform high-tax ones and that there is a possibility that factors other than taxes drive their analysis.
It’s impossible to comment on their analysis without knowing what data the authors used, but it seems clear they avoided complicating the discussion by introducing pesky economic concepts like Game Theory, diffusion and long-run equilibrium.
Interestingly, the authors use an example of smokers to make their point, saying, “Often people who smoke don't get cancer, and sometimes people who don't smoke do get cancer, but that doesn't mean it's smart to smoke. It's a dangerous gamble to raise taxes on capital and businesses to nearly the highest rates in the world and hope that nothing bad will happen”.
This example reminds me of one of Luke Froeb’s lectures about adverse selection and the economic logic of insuring smokers, or people who engage in risky behavior. Individuals moving to low-tax states may engage in riskier behavior, for example, by taking chances and starting more businesses. The really interesting discussion may be whether low-tax states encourage moral hazard because they know high-tax states actually insulate the nation from the full scale of their risky behavior.
What do you think?
