4 ms·
Can you justify that? It sounds like some sort of "efficient market hypothesis" but "efficient government" which isn't a phrase many people would use outside of
by esrauch 8y ago
Can you justify that? It sounds like some sort of "efficient market hypothesis" but "efficient government" which isn't a phrase many people would use outside of a joke.
It easily could be that the "best" tax rate for whatever set of goals is actually 10% or 40%. Then if you live in a society where the applied rates go between 20 and 30% then there's no reason to think it is rational to say "up" or "down" half the time each.
- gaius 8y agothere's no reason to think it is rational to say "up" or "down" half the time each. But is it rational to say “up” every time? If so what happens when you inevitably reach 100% and have nowhere to go? And if it’s that simple then economics is solved and we can fire all the economists too. It may not be exactly half but “up sometimes, down sometimes” is far more likely to be a rational approach.
- esrauch 8y agoI think you misunderstand me: the point is you can't criticize someone got saying "higher than the current rate" if they are just always advocating 40% and that is always higher than what is actually tried. They would clearly be wrong to randomly flip flop. The 100% rate you mention is clearly a strawman: we haven't even tried a 35% rate on the top people in the modern era.