Viva La Laffer Curve

Blessed empirical evidence, Batman! Check out these stats from Australia's little foray into slashing capital gains tax rates!

Those who called for reform of Australia’s capital gains tax regime 10 years ago argued that the Ralph reforms would likely raise more revenue because of the increased incentive they provided for taxpayers to realise capital gains that would otherwise go untaxed. Supply-side economist Alan Reynolds predicted that the reforms would raise twice as much revenue in the long run. He was right. The capital gains tax share of Commonwealth tax revenue nearly doubled between the introduction of the Ralph reforms and 2006–07. In absolute terms, CGT revenue rose from $4.6 billion in 1998–99 to $17.3 billion in 2006–07. CGT revenue growth has been strongest among individuals, who received the larger discount of 50%, followed by funds, which received a 33% discount. The slowest CGT revenue growth has been from companies, which received no discount.

The data suggest that the Ralph CGT reforms have resulted in more tax revenue through increased realisations of capital gains. They have thus strengthened rather than weakened the ability of the tax system to serve equity objectives. The Ralph reforms demonstrate the basic supply-side insight that lower effective tax rates lead to faster growth in the tax base and tax revenue.

Yippee skips!

Google's Role in Child-Rearing

Sigh. This video could not be more accurate. I particularly like "What is a doowla?"

Supermodels Should Stick to Looking Pretty

photo by sdminor81

I find some things about Giselle Bundchen inspirational, the least of which are her thoughts on public policy. According to The Huffington Post, in Harper's Bazaar UK she stated, "I think there should be a worldwide law, in my opinion, that mothers should breastfeed their babies for six months."

Her rationale?

"Some people here [in the U.S.] think they don't have to breastfeed, and I think 'Are you going to give chemical food to your child when they are so little?'"

I would not care much about her comment as I'd like to think no one will take it seriously, but I have come to believe the world is a very scary place these days where law-making run amok could take an innocuous and ridiculous comment like hers and make her the World Breastfeeding Ambassador. Just think about it! Victoria's Secret could launch a new line of government-mandated nursing bras and boost their profit-margins with Giselle's little one suckling at a lace-laden teat. The possibilities for corporatism with ever-increasing population control are phenomenal. Sound extreme? Just look at every other public policy decision being made in the name of "better health" or anything "for the good of the children." It is always and everywhere accompanied by some major corporation's involvement in "problem solving" for the government and de facto monopoly, which then everyone decries as the evils of Big Business, neglecting to note it was only made possible by the legislation in the first place!

Anyway, getting back to Giselle's comment - there is little dispute in the scientific community that breastfeeding is best for a child and mother. The benefits are numerous and I don't need to talk about them here. But, if, for whatever reason a mother cannot or does not wish to breastfeed, does Giselle seriously think jail time is prudent? Because, honestly, that's what happens when people break laws. But I'm doubting she thought that far into her position.

I can completely understand expressing frustration that more people don't take advantage of natural and optimal sources of feeding one's child, but what is the deal with people's desire to create a law for every pet peeve or pet project of theirs? "There should be a law for/against that..." is the latest catch phrase (which is really more of a verbal tick).

The fact that Giselle (and every other celebrity) feels so comfortable expounding upon issues of personal autonomy and scarily, much of the public will tend to agree with them is sad. People confuse consensus opinion with grounds for law-making. The funniest part is that if there is truly consensus opinion, there is probably just as much incentive for change, if not more so, than via arbitrary law-making, which then requires policing. But no one bothers to take that extra step mentally. No one realizes that when they propose some activity be made illegal that the consequence is punishment via some enforcement body. They just assume the law is sufficient to change behavior, which anyone with half a brain could easily observe how faulty that logic is. Just look how well making marijuana consumption and selling illegal has prevented it sale and consumption...