It is not the actual effect of "Laffer (spell it right) economics" whatever the hell that is. The Laffer curve is a economic concept dating back to David Hume in 1756 that there is a certain point between 0% and 100% where the state raises the maximum revenue. Any higher and increased evasion/avoidance would wipe out any gains, any lower and increased compliance wouldn't balance out lost revenue. It is applicable in Sweden as Hong Kong. Now any economist, at any time, studying any economy has a different idea where that high point is and in the real world there is no way to know for sure how close you are to it. The Laffer curve is not some radical right wing concept, it's Economics 102.
Reagan did two things simultaneously, one was cut and simplify taxes in order to boost growth, increase compliance and increase revenue in the long run. It worked, US real* taxable income grew faster that it had since the 60's and government revenues grew with it.
The other was to use debt to finance a massive military build up. These are two separate policies, in Australia, the UK, NZ etc. similar economic policies were pursued in an environment of holding down spending and thus government debt dropped. Reagan was rightly convinced that the Soviet Union was weakening and decided to completely separately spend it into the ground, whether that was necessary is another kettle of fish but it's not Reaganomics, that's the Reagan Doctrine.
*i.e. inflation adjusted