Why don't people talk about a 3D Laffer curve?

When it comes to the Laffer curve, there is a lot of noise in the debate.  The idea that at some point between 0% and 100%, that the government can immediately raise more money by cutting taxes is true, but it is also trivial.  When we ask ourselves where we are on the Laffer curve, we shouldn't think of the curve as merely two dimensional, the third dimension of time should be included.

What many supply-siders who talk about the Laffer curve assume is that a cut in taxes isn't just about incentivizing people to work more during one tax year, but it is also going to result in increased trend economic growth. This is probably true when the tax cut is coincident with increased private sector control of the economy, but may not be true for tax cuts that just increase the deficit. Increased economic growth leads to higher future revenue.  From this we can conclude that in many more country's tax rates are on the right side of the Laffer curve, but only with a time horizon of 10, 20 or even 50 years.  From this perspective, it can be said that the US implemented policies that other European countries who are on the right side of the Laffer curve did not, and is able to raise just as much money with lower taxes.
5 responses
The theory is more fun to say that there's points where /raising/ taxes actually is better for the economy than for leaving them the same or lower them.
There are many points on the Laffer curve where raising taxes can raise more revenue for the government - more in the short run than in the long. However, unless the alternative is using the printing press/very high priced bonds to pay for government spending (See PIIGS) it generally isn't better for the economy. In the latter cases, it usually isn't about the Laffer curve.
How often is a debatable point, my only point is that if you are a true supply-sider or someone who believes in the Lauffer Curve, then you have to believe that raising taxes at certain points can be better and that at certain points lowering taxes hurts. This is often forgotten by many politicians claiming to be supply-siders.
There are lots of cases where lowering taxes hurts revenue, especially in the short run. However, supply-siders are generally targeting policies that increase the wealth of the economy and maximizing tax revenue usually isn't their main goal.

They use the Laffer curve (improperly in many cases) to explain to people whose goal is to presumably to spend more on different programs (as opposed to liking high taxes because it makes society more egalitarian) that there is a free lunch option where both sides can get their way. In many cases it isn't a free lunch, but that doesn't mean a supply-sider politician would choose higher taxes just because government revenue would be higher.

True, but a supply-sider must believe, as a course of policy, that if lowering taxes can improve an economy, that there are points in the economy where increasing taxes can as well.