My understanding of Laffer curve leads to it having merit. There comes a point where the wealthy stop participating in the economy — and take an easier pace of life.

A few years back, the Calgary Flames hired a top-notch hockey player. I did the math on his contract. He got paid $12,000 gross per game. At about 25 games, he reached the highest tier in Canadian taxes: he was netting only $6,000 a game, with the marginal rate being about 50%. Did he stop playing hockey? No, he continued through the 84-game season.

In Laffer logic, he had not reached the point where he withdraws his services from the economy. So it is economically OK to tax hockey players at 50%.

It is my understanding that the advocates of the Laffer curve believe that point is about 70%.

If we tax CEOs at 60% (and they had no loopholes), they would continue to be CEOs. They are not going to take an easier job or retire because of a high tax rate.

Otherwise, this is a good piece. Maybe it needed more of the shell game companies and rich people do to minimize taxes. Here is a Medium article I wrote about that.