On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 17:56:29 -0500, Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > has reduced the government's take of GDP to 17%. > > > > No. It merely has changed the source of the take. In 2000, total > > government spending was 18.4% of GDP. In 2003, it was 19.9%. Using > > T-bills to finance the government doesn't reduce the take. > > > > >Thus, it is not just progressivity, it is the size of the > > >government's share in the economy that is also debated. > > > > Should the size be measured in terms of spending and future > > oblications? Would government have zero size if there was a total tax > > holiday next year and the government was totally financed by debt? > > You are absolutely right that the important figure is government > spending. > > I just wanted to add that, except for those who believe in voodoo > economics and the tooth fairy, a tax cut without a spending cut is not > really a tax cut at all, but rather a tax shift -- to the future. > > -- > Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
Agreed. -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Liberal News Digest - I think Brin was on to something in 'Earth' in suggesting the right to vote be dependent upon subscribing to some opposing viewpoint media. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
