IBJNews

Reagan's supply-side guru to address accountants in Indy

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The man most despised by big-government, Keynesian disciples for arguing that lower taxes and lower government spending will spur economic growth is coming to Indianapolis next week, with a cautionary tale for the states.

Arthur Laffer, President Ronald Reagan’s go-to guy for supply-side economic theory, will address a national gathering of accountants held by Carmel-based newsletter “Inside Public Accounting,” Nov. 4-6 at the downtown Conrad Indianapolis.

Laffer, 73, is often called the father of supply-side economics. His Nov. 6 address will focus on contrasting tax and fiscal policies of California and Texas and their very different economic results.

He’s long produced research asserting states without personal income tax have markedly outperformed those with such taxes.

Texas has no personal income tax, while California has 10.3-percent income tax rate. Over a 10-year period ending in 2010, Texas trounced California in gross state product, personal income and employment growth. It also had more in-migration—people moving there from other parts of the country.

“You cannot tax your way into prosperity,” said Laffer, the founder and chairman of Nashville, Tenn.-based Laffer Associates, an institutional economic research and consulting firm.

Laffer and his economic theories have been rediscovered in the wake of arguably unsuccessful attempts by the Obama administration to reinvigorate the economy with rounds of stimulus programs and tax hikes.

Recently, in a column in the British conservative magazine The Spectator, Laffer said the more than $3 trillion in government spending aimed at reviving the economy after the 2008 financial crisis was “an abject failure.” He has argued that Washington policies have little to show as far as improving employment or economic growth, and in fact prolonged the recovery.

“The last few years have delivered a powerful refutation of Keynesian economics, because the American economy has performed better in an era of downsizing government that it did during the wild spending ride of 2008-11,” he told The Spectator.

Indiana is one of those states with a personal income tax, although it probably is “the least offensive,” when it comes to rates and deleterious effects, said Laffer, a friend of former Gov. Mitch Daniels.

He contrasts Indiana’s economy to that of Michigan, “a tragedy on wheels,” whose auto industry challenges were made worse by high tax rates and government policies, he said.

“You have a very bright future in Indiana," he said.

Laffer’s appearance is to give accounting firms more perspective on how to help their clients deal with fiscal and tax policy, said Michael Platt, principal of Carmel-based The Platt Group, which publishes Inside Public Accounting.

Accounting firms themselves are dealing with challenges ranging from retirements of experienced accountants to pressures to merge to gain the heft to service more and larger clients.

Inside Public Accounting also conducts a national benchmarking report and recognizes firms that have excelled in the industry. Among those to be honored at this year’s symposium is locally based Katz Sapper & Miller.

The symposium is expected to draw a number of guests from Top 100 accounting firms.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Re: Reagan
    I truly believe that the state of Indiana has been smart with the use of its money. Under Reagan's term our federal economy grew, so why not add the same tactic to the Accountants in Indianapolis. Right now many accountants are facing challenges from the retirements to the merging of firms. I like the idea of trying to use supply-side economics in the workplace.
  • State performance?
    Since Laffer just likes to throw up some numbers without analysis, wonder if he would accept the numbers on Texas ranging from the number of uninsured, to infant mortality, to crime, to average wages and income inequality?
  • What's that humming sound?
    Yes the economy was humming during Reagan's second term - at least for those selling arms to Iran.
  • And
    Yes. This is from a press release. Critical thinking, "kiddies."
  • Really?
    How is "borrow and spend" a la Bush working out for ya, guys? Laffer's theories have had 40 years of real-world trial. They. don't. work. There's an interesting cadre of folks - like Laffer, Bill Bennett, Bill Kristol, Peggy Noonan - who still have careers because they once shared a room with an inexplicably popular President (who did raise taxes and did support amnesty). So, go see him in the same way you'd go see Three Dog Night or Jan and Dean. Nostalgia for an age that didn't really happen the way you all "remember"...
  • ?
    I have failed to take anything away from this article.
  • Obamanomics
    How is that Obama economy and health care working out for you? Economy was humming in Reagan's second term, kiddies.
    • Lefty whiners
      Go light a candle to your Savior Obama, you name calling half-wit Commie
    • Beware
      Tax and spend clowns posted below.
    • Typical
      Typical comments from the peanut gallery. As usual with liberals, if you can't argue with facts, throw mud.
    • And, to Chris
      Journalists typically write their own articles. This is right from the Laffer PR department.
      • Conrad?
        This is being held at the Conrad? Crackers on South Meridian would be a more appropriate venue...
      • I'll go
        I like comedy.

      Post a comment to this story

      COMMENTS POLICY
      We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
       
      You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
       
      Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
       
      No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
       
      We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
       

      Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

      Sponsored by
      ADVERTISEMENT

      facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
       
      Subscribe to IBJ
      1. Liberals do not understand that marriage is not about a law or a right ... it is a rite of religous faith. Liberals want "legal" recognition of their homosexual relationship ... which is OK by me ... but it will never be classified as a marriage because marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. You can gain / obtain legal recognition / status ... but most people will not acknowledge that 2 people of the same sex are married. It's not really possible as long as marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

      2. That second phrase, "...nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens..." is the one. If you can't understand that you lack a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and I can't help you. You're blind with prejudice.

      3. Why do you conservatives always go to the marrying father/daughter, man/animal thing? And why should I keep my sexuality to myself? I see straights kissy facing in public all the time.

      4. I just read the XIV Amendment ... I read where no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property ... nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens ... I didn't see anything in it regarding the re-definition of marriage.

      5. I worked for Community Health Network and the reason that senior leadership left is because they were not in agreement with the way the hospital was being ran, how employees were being treated, and most of all how the focus on patient care was nothing more than a poster to stand behind. Hiring these analyst to come out and tell people who have done the job for years that it is all being done wrong now...hint, hint, get rid of employees by calling it "restructuring" is a cheap and easy way out of taking ownership. Indiana is an "at-will" state, so there doesn't have to be a "reason" for dismissal of employment. I have seen former employees that went through this process lose their homes, cars, faith...it is very disturbing. The patient's as well have seen less than disireable care. It all comes full circle.

      ADVERTISEMENT