home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!uchinews!ellis!thf2
- From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
- Subject: Re: Deficit
- Message-ID: <1993Jan23.233016.19156@midway.uchicago.edu>
- Sender: news@uchinews.uchicago.edu (News System)
- Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
- Organization: University of Chicago
- References: <1993Jan23.101214.24725@midway.uchicago.edu> <C1Btto.Mn2@unix.portal.com>
- Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 23:30:16 GMT
- Lines: 23
-
- In article <C1Btto.Mn2@unix.portal.com> mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
- >Ted Frank (thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu) wrote:
- >: But "tax revenues" tells us too little. If taxes are 2% of GNP, then
- >: there's lots of room to expand "tax revenues." If taxes are a huge
- >: proportion of GNP, there isn't. If we need to include GNP in the
- >: equation to make the "tax revenue" ratio tell us anything, then
- >: we might as well use GNP, and cut out the middleman.
- >
- >Tax revenues do not tell us too little. GNP tells us too little :)
- >Actually GNP tells us what tax revenues will be. Revenues are about
- >26% of GNP. Its been that way for a long time, too. Juggling various
- >tax rates will still keep it at 26% - it just shifts the burden of
- >paying the tax.
-
- Really? Is that 26% true across all time periods for all countries?
-
- If you prefer to use tax revenues instead of GNP, fine. Just recognize
- that by that measure we're even better off relative to where we were in
- 1945, when the tax rate was lower.
- --
- ted frank | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu
- standard disclaimers | void where prohibited
- the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
-