this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2025
1325 points (99.1% liked)

Today I Learned

20913 readers
1296 users here now

What did you learn today? Share it with us!

We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.

** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**



Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmit.online/post/5566633

This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.

The original was posted on /r/todayilearned by /u/MechCADdie on 2025-04-04 08:19:11+00:00.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] d00phy@lemmy.world 109 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Someone has either never seen “Ferris Buller’s Day Off,” can’t remember it very well, or didn’t pay attention. This was covered in class!

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 91 points 1 day ago (2 children)

In 1930, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, in an effort to alleviate the effects of the... Anyone? Anyone?... the Great Depression, passed the... Anyone? Anyone? The tariff bill? The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act? Which, anyone? Raised or lowered?... raised tariffs, in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal government. Did it work? Anyone? Anyone know the effects? It did not work, and the United States sank deeper into the Great Depression. Today we have a similar debate over this. Anyone know what this is? Class? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone seen this before? The Laffer Curve. Anyone know what this says? It says that at this point on the revenue curve, you will get exactly the same amount of revenue as at this point. This is very controversial. Does anyone know what Vice President Bush called this in 1980? Anyone? Something-d-o-o economics. Voodoo economics.

[–] VitoRobles@lemmy.today 49 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I watched this movie 3-4 times and even when reading this, I'm still spaced out.

Ben Stein just has a voice that makes me tune him out.

Such a great voice for comedy. Shame he's anti-abortion, pretty racist, pro-Regan and Trump, weirdly against evolution... So many awful perspectives.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 32 points 1 day ago (2 children)

weirdly against evolution

You can see his point. Look where it got us, we should have stayed in the sea.

[–] logi@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

Yeah, can we vote for some intelligent design please. The old regime isn't working out.

[–] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Worth noting Laffers claim had already been proven to be likely true by the time that was filmed. The claim is you can set a tax rate so high that it can encourage tax evasion, avoidance, and fraud and that reducing the rate below this level can bring in as much if not more tax revenue which was demonstrated to be likely true in 1983.

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Or we could just fund the IRS since it’s a profit center.

[–] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 2 points 23 hours ago

We could do both?

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

proven to be true? that is news to me.

[–] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

proven to be likely true and you can look at the 1983 tax cuts for evidence of it being likely true.

[–] ExtantHuman@lemm.ee 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So the cut that went into effect in '83 was passed in '81, just before a recession hit. So the US seeing an increase in revenue compared to the few years before that where unemployment was up over 8% and gdp dropping, is really more about the economy recovering than tax policy changes.

Except the size of the cut was substantial and we still brought in more revenue because of people moving wealth from foreign banks to US ones. Your explanation doesn’t account for this.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

proven likely true means not proven true. Way to many factors. I personally thing the theory has a sorta merit but is very limited and vague (in the sense of there is no identification of where the exact sweet spot of taxation levels are). For example the punitive measures for not paying taxes at very high levels need to be very severe to curtail such behavior. So five figure owning person or mom and pop shop you give a slap on the wrist. Maybe 10% of owed added. Wealthiest individuals and companies get knocked completely out of their level so like 500% of what was owed.

[–] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

To be clear it isn’t a theory. It really is an idea explained on a cocktail napkin. There seems to be a rate that if you reduce it under you get more recenue which worked once in 1983. There’s nothing to support further cuts though

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I would not even say it worked once in 83. Lower rates are one possible reason but like anything with the economy there are plenty of factors including cyclical changes that could explain it.

[–] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

By all indicators more money was moved back into the USA from abroad and tax revenues were up. That seems to suggest the idea has some degree of merit

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I mean that sounds more like a tax haven situation. Honestly to stop that I think countries should require companies meet their tax rate globally where they can deduct what they pay elsewhere.

[–] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes the money was moved out of the tax havens because it was preferable to have here after the top rates were reduced. That’s why it is considered to be a viable notion

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

See. to me. we became the tax haven.

That’s a fairly accurate reading of an unintended result of this.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Laffer curve in political practice is BS. It is proven that you raise 0 revenue at 100% tax rate because no one is actually paid to work, then. The political distortion is "therefore, always lower taxes for more revenue".

[–] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

No it makes sense it just isn’t scientific nor does it justify any cut after 1983.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 hours ago

nor does it justify any cut after 1983.

That was my point on how it is misused.

[–] higgsboson@dubvee.org 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Planet Money interviewed the professor who wrote the book from which Ben Stein is reading in that scene.

It is an older episode they re-air periodically. I think this one:

https://www.npr.org/2024/12/11/1218506684/worst-tariffs-ever-update

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 5 points 1 day ago

I know it from the Newsroom