What is "fairness?"

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Lower tax rates do not always equal less money. Lower tax rates tend to stimulate the economy and tend to result in an increase in revenue rather than a reduction.

Well, I'm glad Bush's tax cuts produced such wonderful results: full employment and no deficit by the end of his term.

Nice strawman.

It's ok, we understand that's the only gambit you have left.

Just because the results don't match the theory you espouse doesn't make it a strawman.

We had the cuts. We were better off in the '90s.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[StreetScooby 5]

First, let me thank you for the considered replies you've made here. I do come to this site to learn, and it's nice when that happens.

Second, let me give you some audience definition regarding me. I work in the bond industry. The desk I support moves $500B/month in just MBS. The issues we're discussing are very relevant, IMO.

Quote

Your argument about "debt will be debt" because other investors will raise the interest rate is self-defeating.

How so?

Quote

The PIGS in fact shows that when you don't own your own currency (i.e: unable to print your money), the Government has little to no flexibility over its debts while Americans do have control of their currency.

Valid point. But, there is a cost associated with printing money. The dynamics and timing of the cost can vary by country, but I think we can both agree it's not a sustainable long term approach to resolving debt issues.

Quote

You seem to have a very narrow understanding of debt when you try to compare U.S situations with Greece rather than Japan 1990 lost decade or the U.S 1930 crisis(es).

I don't think that's a fair statement on your part. With continued discussion, I expect you'll change your view of this.

Quote

The U.S, in spite of all the quantitive easing, is still considered one of THE most safest place to park your money.

And why is that? It's not because where doing something right with respect to monetary policy. It's because the rest of the democratic world is in worse shape than us.

Why is US government debt considered riskless? It's because we have 10 aircraft carriers floating around the Earth's seas full of competent people who know how to use them. All other factors as to why US government debt is riskless are secondary to this. Any one who says otherwise simply does not know what they are talking about.

Quote

-0.025 Negative Interest Rate.

Most people have no idea what that means. A few months back, when this first happened, we had a slew of trades come in that broke our system. Why? Because the effective yield on those trades was negative, and that's not supposed to happen in the bond world. Basically, people with money were locking in loses. That's how much uncertainty there was in the market. They deliberately put their money into trades where they knew how much they would lose, because putting it elsewhere had the potential to lose even more. This is not a good place to be.

Quote

The U.S is far from bankruptcy. What matters now is the sluggish economy and they need to get the American economic engine running again.

Bankruptcy is not the issue, in my mind, at this point in time. The US government has an incredible spending problem. That's the issue. Even if they took all of the millionaires and billionaires money, and all corporate profit, we still would have a deficit.

Do you want to know the real reason why the Fed is doing everything it can to keep interest rates low? Because we are so deep in debt, especially short term debt that keeps getting rolled over, that if the interest rates start rising our debt service costs will approach $1T/year. This is a horrible place to be. To continue policies that got us here is sheer insanity. Obama shows no connection whatsoever with this reality.

Quote

They can borrow money with little to no repercussions while the additional money will help the U.S get out of its liquidity trap.

So, by definition a liquidity trap is one where you keep pouring money in, and nothing changes. How is continuing to pour money into this liquid trap going to get us out of the liquidity trap?

Quote

Consider this, from an article titled “Liquidity Crises – Understanding sources and limiting consequences: A theoretical framework,” by Robert E. Lucas, Jr. and Nancy L. Stokey:

In studies conducted by Nancy Stokey and Robert Lucas, the WHOLE banking system held approximately 50 billion $ in cash by August 2008. The banking system was clearing about 2.9 to 3 trillion $ PER DAY. This wouldn’t be so bad if the contracts said “We’l pay IF we have money”. No, most of the trades involved the promise to pay somebody in hard cash based on the contracts given. Banks would therefore have to rely heavily on the repo market to pay them back in these hard cash. If a certain bank or financial institution cannot pay back and this becomes public information, then the bank will go under through a bank run. Having 50 B$ for 3 trillion $, there is no margin for error.

Even the slightest doubt in the quality of the collaterals traded in the repo market could break the system. Guess what? 2008 was it.

That's well said. You may find these of interest:

Previous 12 Months Volume for Mortgage-Backed Securities
Previous 12 Months Volume for Government Securities
Fails Data Chart

Quote

Having basic good capital wasn't the sole problem behind the 2008 crisis. Lehman and Bear Stearns fell because brokers who had the power over their short-term financing started to worry about the collateral that was promised to them.

You seem to be contradicting yourself a bit here. I watched this happen. Bear and Lehman had loaded up on shit paper, then leveraged the hell out of it. No repo desk would touch the paper or them as counterparties. They have only themselves to blame for getting into that situation.

Quote

Point is, when confidence fell out of flavour, the Obama administration Hank Paulson took the major steps necessary to restore this confidence. The Government was the back-stop in the relation. This is debt that is being used for good use. What do you think is going to happen if the Government said "no, we'l step back and cut our way out of this"?

The Fed is lender of last resort. They fulfilled that obligation. The bigger questions are how did we get into a situation where they had to do that, and what's going to stop it from happening again? Dodd-Frank is not the answer, nor is SOX. Repealing Glass-Steagall was a mistake that needs to be addressed (...why not just bring it back? It worked well for 50+ years).

Quote

More on the Euro (its a very fascinating subject to mention since its very current-event):

Got that? Cut the deficit too aggressively, and the negative impact on growth and the rise in the cost of debt service from higher spreads could result in a higher, not lower, debt-to-GDP ratio.

For some reason, people keep on demanding for expansionary austerity when it had and still is a very counter-productive thing to do. What makes you think it will work in the U.S?

My point here is western governments have been spending too much for too long. That's go to stop. Will there be pain? Yes. Can't be avoided now.

Quote

Hopefully, these are a bit of the summaries of the CS and hopefully broadened your understanding of the debt and the economy.

Again, thanks for the considered replies. I hope that's typical for your responses, because I'm sure I'll learn something.

We are all engines of karma

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

For some reason, people keep on demanding for expansionary austerity when it had and still is a very counter-productive thing to do. What makes you think it will work in the U.S?

You are arguing from two sides. On the one hand, you are discussing the problems with short-term ambitions in the market and arguing that long-term solvency are necessary. On the other hand, you are pointing to the shocks that are caused by austerity and the short-term problems that they cause.

Here in the US those of us who are looking to the mid term and long term see what is up ahead and it is not sustainable. The government itself projects that just Medicare is underfunded by over $100 trillion dollars through 2080. UNDERFUNDED! And that entitlement spending and debt servicing will exceed all federal revenues within eight years.

That’s the future. They are projections, and maybe Medicare will only be underfunded by $50 trillion or could be underfunded by $200 trillion. But most people who stop and think realize that the sooner the austerity begins the smaller the short term shock.

I’ve compared it to a junkie getting off smack. Few people ever argue, “The pain of dt’s is not a good thing. We just can’t see how that would do anybody any good. The appropriate route is to take more heroin as your need for it increases, thus ensuring your long-term fitness.”

And the other thing becomes – what is a fair way of paying for it?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

We had the cuts. We were better off in the '90s.

Tell that to Southern California - particularly the LA Metro. LA took a big hit because it was generally the locus of defense and aerospace. I knew plenty who were not "better off."

Of course, it was government spending so I'm not having a problem with it.

Austerity WILL hurt people. It's simply picking a different set of people and saying, "Your turn for some pain."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

While it would obviously be silly to claim that the only way to get out of debt is to go deeper into debt, there are many times when it makes good sense for a business to borrow to invest in infrastructure that improves productivity and profitability. As long as the return is greater than the cost of borrowing it makes sense. In fact I'd guess that just about every small business starts out with a loan, as few people would have the cash in hand to buy a building for the plant or store, fleet of trucks to deliver the goods, hire staff, etc.

Agreed.

Quote

Here's a 2009 analysis that shows that every dollar the government spends on the National Institutes of Health to fund basic biomedical research and train researchers leverages $3.50 in spending by the pharmaceutical industry. This industry is one of the few where the US has a significant trade surplus. There are numerous other examples where government programs leverage significant private sector activity that otherwise wouldn't be feasible for logistic or economic reasons.

Thanks for posting this article. Good stuff. I for one believe this is a valid and vital role for our government to play, particularly using quotes from the article:

Quote

NIH funding is the key to driving down healthcare costs and improving productivity and quality of life of US citizens

If the government is funding it, there's a side of me that feels is should be public domain. Question concerning this - "Bayh-Dole requires that NIH grant recipients: (a) patent and (b) favor small, USA companies when they license". I appreciate people need to make money in life, and that those that work hard and produce should be able to make alot of money. What's being patented by Bayh-Dole? The basic research, or the process by which that research is delivered to consumers?

Quote

Return:
– $2.21 per NIH-dollar spent in additional economic output
– 350,000 directly funded jobs + 800,000 supporting jobs created in private sector

It would be interesting to see who came up with those numbers, and how they came up with them. I'm not disputing it, just interested to see how they come up with these numbers.

Quote

“What a strange business this is: We stay in school forever. We have to battle the system with only a one in eight or one in ten chance of getting funded. We give up making a living until our forties. And we do it because we want to help the world. What kind of crazy person would go for that?”

My son is a junior in high school, and very much wants to be a doctor or pursue medical research. He's very motivated to make a difference in people's lives, and I think he'll be great at it. I've forwarded him this document. Having gone through graduate school, the above quote statement is disturbing. Not sure how that part of the system could be improved upon. Any suggestions you could offer him?

Quote

First, where is the evidence that lowering tax rates increases economic activity?

I've attached a chart taken from today's WSJ. Granted, it's not a complete comparison of apples to apples, but I believe it illustrates the point we're discussing. Folks like to throw out results from "the Bush tax cuts". Bush didn't just cut taxes, he kept spending like a drunken sailor, also.

Quote

The economy was growing at a much faster rate at times in the past when tax rates were also significantly higher (such as during the Clinton administration).

Personally, I think Clinton had found a reasonable balance in his policies (not just tax policies).

Quote

On the other hand, lowering tax rates has historically not led to increased employment or manufacturing activity.

Not sure where you're getting that. If you consider that most new employment is driven by entrepreneurs in the US, lowering tax rates absolutely helps them in their business.

Quote

Anyway, although tax cuts for the already wealthy has risen to the level of dogma in Republican circles, it's inherently contradictory to the concept of supply and demand driving economic activity.

If you look at my voter registration, you'll see "NONE". Really wealthy people live off capital gains. That's an incredibly small portion of our population. Even it you took all of their money, we'd still have a deficit.

Quote

Just putting more money into the end of the pipeline (profit to businesses due to lower costs) won't do anything to encourage growth if demand stays flat or shrinks, and stagnant or declining income to the middle and lower income classes (who make up the overwhelming majority of the consumer market) ensure that demand will stay flat.

People need jobs, which requires companies, and entrepreneurs to start those companies. There's alot that can be done to minimize the hurdles being faced here. Our government should expect a work ethic from our citizens. It should be expected that if you are a father, you get up in the morning and go to work, and provide for your family. End of story. If you need to better yourself to make more money, then you do so.

Quote

Secondly, chemical engineers should know that even inverse responses only happen over a defined range of variables (such as concentrations of reactants) and conditions. There is always an optimum set of conditions where the reaction is most efficient.

Agreed.

Quote

WRT to taxes, obviously if the government taxed at 100% there would be no private sector investment and eventually tax revenues would go to 0. Similarly, if the tax rate was 0%, revenues to the government would be 0. There must be a non-zero tax rate that optimizes revenues.

Agreed.

Quote

The assumption that lowing tax rates will increase revenues assumes we are currently above that optimum rate, but there is no evidence for that being the case.

The material I read (e.g. WSJ) shows this all of the time. What are you reading?

Quote

Given what has happened following the Bush tax cuts,

You can't measure just this. You also must account for the fact that Bush kept spending like a drunken sailor.

Quote

I think the evidence is that we are below the optimum now, and further cuts will just further ensure the government can't meet its obligations.

The government has so many "obligations" now that it couldn't meet them even if they took all the money from millionaires and billionaires, and all corporate profits.


Thanks for the reasoned reply. I learned somethings from your material. Much appreciated.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,070]

>I continue to be amazed at people who claim that the only way to get
>ourselves out of debt is to go deeper into debt.

Yep. And there are people who claim that the only way to get out of debt is to take less money in. Some nuts out there.

[billvon 3,070]

>Yes, but covering the hole does not mean increasing taxes

We must increase taxes and decrease spending. Period. Both sides have to abandon their political nonsense and do what it takes to fix the deficit problem.

[lawrocket 3]

In terms of "fairness" I don't believe it appropriate to assign blame or credit to a president for the economy or for deficits or taxes. Congress does all those things.

Sure, the President has a bully pulpit and can argue for certain things. Much like StreetScooby's son can argue for permission to have a few shots of whiskey before taking the family car out to hang out with his friends.

Congress spends money. Congress makes laws that allows this spending to happen. The President can veto laws, but the veto power wasn't exercised.

The MASSIVE growth in spending we've seen is hugely entitlements - non-discretionary. Only Congress can fix it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

We must increase taxes revenue and decrease spending.

I think my change is a clearer statement. Part of my problem is that the argument is centered on increasing taxes on the rich without providing the backdrop that it will increase revenue.

Plus - the Debt Commission recommended CAPPING revenues as a percentage of GDP, finding that too much revenue shrinks the pie. The debt commission suggested, I think, a 22% cap on revenue/GDP. Which means that if 30% of the GDP is spent, it won't be paid for.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,070]

>I think my change is a clearer statement.

Well, so is "we must increase revenue and decrease outlays." That way the right can claim "revenue is not taxes! We can increase revenue other ways than raising taxes." And the left can claim "outlays are not the same as cutting programs! We can reduce outlays by improving everyone's health and reducing the load on Medicare without cutting vital program." And that way neither side has to do anything other than talk - which, of course, is a good outcome for them, not such a good outcome for us.

>Part of my problem is that the argument is centered on increasing taxes on
>the rich without providing the backdrop that it will increase revenue.

Gotta be careful there. If you want to increase revenue without increasing taxes, then the economy has to improve. And government spending improves the economy quite rapidly (see WWII spending, the New Deal.) But we've been doing that for decades - and we can see where that got us.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Yep. And there are people who claim that the only way to get out of debt is to take less money in. Some nuts out there.

We're all in agreement that revenues into the government need to be increased. Raising taxes is not necessarily the best way to do that.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,070]

>We're all in agreement that revenues into the government need to
>be increased. Raising taxes is not necessarily the best way to do that.

And we have the left that is claiming "we're all in agreement that outlays have to be decreased. Cutting programs is not necessarily the best way to do that." And that is literally true, but will result in no change.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

the New Deal.

There's alot of literature that debunks the myth that FDR saved us. FDR caused a massive capital flight from this country. His own treasury secretary said, "We're spending more than ever, and it's not working". The economy turned after FDR had died. For most of his time in office, it was in the doldrums.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,070]

>There's alot of literature that debunks the myth that FDR saved us.

Agreed; FDR didn't save us. The New Deal helped a bit, but the real recovery came with the massive spending surrounding our entry into WWII.

[airtwardo 7]

I can make a reasonable bet that the person will be tanked a half hour into it.

Quote

Well, I didn't get TOO tanked last night, what I did do was play 'college student' again... and took note through the lecture.

I'm doing some on-line research to try to understand both sides of many issues pertinent to me...

What are your thoughts on the address Rocket?

Sure there was a lot of campaigning there, but some of it makes sense if both parties would abide.

I'm trying to keep an open mind and not just be a hater...

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

The New Deal helped a bit, but the real recovery came with the massive spending surrounding our entry into WWII.

That, and the fact the capital stayed in the country after FDR was gone.

We are all engines of karma

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

And government spending improves the economy quite rapidly (see WWII spending, the New Deal.)

With that there is room for argument. The New Deal lasted until WWII. There are those (like me) who suggest that the New Deal programs actually PREVENTED the US from coming out of the Depression.

WWII, on the other hand, pulled us out because the workforce was mobilized and utilized. The US debt was massive from it, but there were no longer people expecting the government to do things. They went to work for the effort, enlisted, got drafted, and worked the factories to produce for war.

It was the result of an entire national ethos to WORK towards a goal. The New Deal didn't do that. It's why it was the Depression (and a double dipper, too). The New Deal didn't work, but FDR got elected again and again because he told the People that he was trying, and he villainized the wealthy and the bankers. Sound familiar?

Quote

But we've been doing that for decades - and we can see where that got us.

Correct. And increasing government breadth. Medicare worked great when the baby boomers were there to pay for the previous generations. A MUCH larger pool of people paying into it that taking from it. That's not the case.

The largest government programs are Ponzi schemes and those are doomed to failure. Meanwhile, plenty on BOTH sides of the aisle insist that Medicare and Social Security not be touched because they DEPEND on it now - having not planned on it not being there.

That's the problem of fairness. Fair to me? Fair to them? Somebody will get screwed. Who will it be?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

And we have the left that is claiming "we're all in agreement that outlays have to be decreased. Cutting programs is not necessarily the best way to do that." And that is literally true, but will result in no change.

Cutting Medicare and Social Security is the ONLY way to decrease outlays. You can cut EVERYTHING else out and leave only Social Security, Medicare, Welfare and debt servicing and the entirety of revenues will be eaten up by 2020.

If defense is cut to zero, the budget will still grow.

There is no way around it. Medicare and Social Security MUST be scaled back.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

What are your thoughts on the address Rocket?

I did not hear, see or read a word of it. Busily watching son, hanging with my wife, and watching DVD of "The Universe."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,070]

>Cutting Medicare and Social Security is the ONLY way to decrease outlays.

Akin to "increasing taxes is the ONLY way to increase income."

>You can cut EVERYTHING else out and leave only Social Security, Medicare,
>Welfare and debt servicing and the entirety of revenues will be eaten up by
>2020.

Without tax increases - agreed.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

That's the problem of fairness. Fair to me? Fair to them? Somebody will get screwed. Who will it be?

Simple - anyone not old enough to vote.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[StreetScooby 5]

Here's an article from today's WSJ that seems apropos for this thread:

I've highlighted an entry regarding "short-term Keynesian actions"..
Guess there is no such thing as a long term Keynesian action, because you'd be broke

========================================

Economics for the Long Run

Individuals should be free to decide what to produce and consume, and their decisions should be made within a predictable policy framework based on the rule of law.

By JOHN B. TAYLOR

As this election year begins, a lot of people are wondering what we can do to restore America's prosperity and create more jobs. Republican presidential candidates are offering their ideas, and at his State of the Union message on Tuesday President Obama presented his. I believe the fundamental answer is simple: Government policies must adhere more closely to the principles of economic freedom upon which the country was founded.

At their most basic level, these principles are that families, individuals and entrepreneurs must be free to decide what to produce, what to consume, what to buy and sell, and how to help others. Their decisions are to be made within a predictable government policy framework based on the rule of law, with strong incentives derived from the market system, and with a clearly limited role for government.

The history of American economic policy displays major movements between more and less economic freedom, more and less emphasis on rules-based policy in fiscal and monetary affairs, more and less expansive roles for government, more and less reliance on markets and incentives. Each of these swings has had enormous consequences. Taken together, they make for a historical proving ground to determine which policy direction is better for restoring prosperity.

A big move toward more interventionist policies started in the mid-1960s, after more activist Keynesian economists came to town in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, and it lasted through the 1970s in the Nixon, Ford and Carter administrations. We saw short-term stimulus packages, temporary tax rebates or surcharges, go-stop monetary policy with inflationary overexpansion followed by severe contraction, wage-and-price guidelines and controls. The eventual result was high unemployment, high inflation and slow economic growth.

This was followed by a shift toward more predictable policies and a more limited role for government starting in the Reagan administration and largely continuing into the George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations. The result was lower unemployment and higher economic growth with long expansions and few recessions.

More recently—beginning during the George W. Bush administration but really taking wings in the current Obama administration—policy has returned toward more and more government intervention, with results we are all experiencing.

How to move the country back toward the policies that sustain economic freedom and prosperity? To start, much can be learned from the stories of the politicians and economic officials who got us in and out of these messes, and remembering that the cast is bipartisan. Most pertinent to our current predicament is the story of how we got out of the economic mess of the late 1970s.

It's difficult to recall now the seriousness of the U.S. economic slump at that time. Unemployment was high and persistent. Inflation had increased past the creeping stage to a trot. Confidence in U.S. economic leadership was plunging at home and abroad.

That changed when Ronald Reagan became president in 1981. Temporary, short-term Keynesian actions and interventions were out. Stable, permanent policy was in. Reagan proposed and Congress passed critical long-term reforms, especially across-the-board tax rate reductions.
Related Video

The president was a firm believer in economic freedom, an avid reader and follower of economists like Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. Between the time he failed to unseat President Gerald Ford in the 1976 Republican primaries and his announcement to run again in 1980, Reagan gave innumerable radio addresses putting forth his principles. He used down-home stories of economic freedom that he could tell in three minutes or less. There were no ghost writers—he wrote his stories in long hand on lined yellow paper as he traveled around the country. The failed policies of the 1970s made Reagan's case appealing across the political spectrum. He based his winning election campaign on these principles.

Reagan appointed a large number of economic officials who also were firmly committed to moving away from interventionist policies. No members of the original Council of Economic Advisers under Reagan had come from the Keynesian school of thought, and most of them during the Reagan administrations were influenced by Milton Friedman.

In addition, the president appointed a group of outside economic advisers—originally including George Shultz, Milton Friedman, Alan Greenspan, Arthur Laffer, William Simon and Thomas Sowell—who helped him and others in the administration implement policies to move the country toward economic freedom and then stay the course.

As an example of Reagan's firm commitment to principle, consider monetary policy. When he became president, Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, a Democrat appointed by President Carter, was determined to reduce inflation and end the go-stop interventions of the 1970s. That meant temporarily high interest rates, which contract the economy. One might have expected Reagan to pressure the Fed to lower interest rates to give a short-term boost to the economy. He did not, despite the political costs. In comparison with the political pressure put on Fed Chairman William McChesney Martin by the Johnson administration and on Arthur Burns by the Nixon administration to follow easy money policies, Reagan's decision to support Mr. Volcker was remarkable.

The president's economic strategy was ready to go as soon as the votes were counted in November 1980. That same month, George Shultz, along with many of the economists who had worked in the campaign, wrote an extraordinary memo to Reagan entitled "Economic Strategy for the Reagan Administration." It began with a call for action: "Sharp change in present economic policy is an absolute necessity. The problems . . . an almost endless litany of economic ills, large and small, are severe. But they are not intractable. Having been produced by government policy, they can be redressed by a change in policy. . . . The need for a long-term point of view is essential to allow for the time, the coherence and the predictability so necessary for success."

That predictable, long-term view continued well beyond the Reagan presidency, but it is no longer with us. The clear lesson is to find and select those leaders, regardless of political party, who along with their advisers are most firmly committed to the principles of economic freedom and who know how to implement and maintain them.

Mr. Taylor is a professor of economics at Stanford and a senior fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution. This op-ed is adapted from "First Principles: Five Keys to Restoring American Prosperity," published this week by W.W. Norton.

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Without tax revenue increases - agreed.

Couldn't help myself here...
Just trying to keep the discussion focused
By just focusing on tax increases, you're missing out on the other ways revenue to the government can be increased, and in with proper policy, increased dramatically.

We are all engines of karma

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Yet, these same people, who have such incredible "skill" at math, can't understand that decreasing tax rates will actually increase the size of the economy (i.e., the pie gets bigger), and thereby increase the tax revenues. They insist on viewing the size of the pie as fixed, independent of any actions the government may take.

Right, decrease tax rates and revenues increase. The obvious answer is to decrease tax rates to 0 and then tax revenues rise to ∞

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Right, decrease tax rates and revenues increase. The obvious answer is to decrease tax rates to 0 and then tax revenues rise to ∞

that's a faulty debate and logic tool - absurdum limit(something latin sounding) - I think

you can contrast to the opposite limit - "right, increase tax rates and revenues increase. The obvious answer is to increase tax rates to 100% and then tax revenues rise to _______"

it highlights your post as silly because if taxes were 100% and the government did everything then we'd either have a population that did nothing because they don't have to, or the population would be forced labor in slavery to the government - both extremes ignore economic and psychological variables.....





it's more like a curve - the debate is really which side of the maximum we are on - and whether than maximum can be moved also......

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants