User talk:VikingExplorer

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or sock puppetry.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Grayfell (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

Hello, I'm Grayfell. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Grayfell for helping me to cite all my sources. VikingExplorer (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

Hello. Please answer the objections I have brought up on Talk:Supply-side economics. The example you have given is not found in source you've supplied. Hypothetical situations like that are not immune to Wikipedia's requirement for reliable, secondary sources. Additionally, stating or even implying that the increase in tax revenue during the Reagan administration is a consequence of the Laffer curve without sources explicitly saying exactly that is WP:OR. It's also pretty hotly contested, as you probably know, so we need to explain who is making that claim, not just presenting it as undisputed fact. I know this can sometimes seem like a lot of bureaucratic nonsense, but Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and if there's no consensus someone else will eventually remove what you've added. Discussing this on the talk page is the best way to make a lasting contribution to the article. Again, please finish discussing your edits, otherwise you are WP:EDITWARRING. As a general guideline, editors are recommended to be bold, revert, then discuss. The place to discuss this is Talk:Supply-side economics. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 04:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Grayfell for helping me to fine tune the changes to be correct. VikingExplorer (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Laffer Curve and % of GDP

There seem to be people who erroneously think that an argument against the Laffer curve is that it doesn't raise tax revenues as a % of GDP. This is an invalid argument. For example, imagine if we had a tax rate of 10%, and this raised $10 in tax revenue. The GDP must be $10/.1 = $100. If we then lowered the tax rate to 9%, and IF in this imaginary scenario, the tax revenues increased to $11, then the GDP must have increased to $11/.09 = $122. The tax revenues as a percentage of GDP would be $10/$100 = 10% and $11/$122 = 9%. See how it matches the tax rate? So, claiming that the Laffer curve is invalid because it doesn't increase taxes as % of GPD is non-sense. It shows an extreme lack of understanding and critical thinking skills. In any real situation, the economy may or may not be overtaxed, and a tax cut may or may not actually increase revenues. There is a lot to criticize about actual tax policy, but we should not engage in non-sequitur arguments.

First off, Wikipedia only uses reliable sources. You must provide a source for this, or it doesn't belong in this encyclopedic article. Justifying the addition based on your overly-simplified (and false) example is original research. Secondly, your example is wrong because it assumes GDP is equal to taxable income, which is not true. Your entire argument is also easily proven false. In the case of tax cuts causing an increase in overall tax revenue, there is an economic effect (i.e. raise in taxable income and likely raise in GDP) that overcomes the tax revenue lost from the tax cuts, leading to an overall increase in tax revenue (i.e. raise in tax revenue). Thus, since both tax revenue and GDP might be raised, Laffer theory cannot predict anything about tax revenue as a % of GDP (again, GDP does not equal taxable income). Please remove your false information. Abierma3 (talk) 07:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]