Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Guy Higgins's avatar

Karen, Thanks yet again. However, you made one comment I want to discuss a bit. You said, "If Erie lowers its tax rate below 3% the revenue sharing will reflect that. (Never heard of this happening. Who would reduce the amount of taxes collected?)". Actually, the correlation between tax rate and tax revenue is not as strong as you imply.

The classic examples are:

- Years ago, Philadelphia wanted to address childhood obesity so they imposed a tax rate on sugary drinks (they just by happenstance included diet drinks to make tax calculation more simple -- yeah, right). Unsurprisingly, the sales of those drinks in Philadelphia dropped steeply (as did taxes associated with those, and other grocery, sales -- tax rate up, revenue down). The interesting thing is that the sales of those targeted, evil sugary drinks (and other groceries) jumped in adjacent municipalities that did not tax them. People are not (in the words of Dr. Thomas Sowell) inert chess pieces. They make decisions and take actions for themselves.

- The federal income tax rates have jumped all over the place from the 91% marginal tax rate that AOC likes to banter about in the 1950's to the much lower tax rates of the Reagan years. Strangely, the federal-income-tax-generated revenue has remained stable at around 17% of GDP independent of the tax rates. Again, people are not inert chess pieces. If Louisville were to lower it's sales tax rate to 2%, how many people would make the slightly longer trip to the Louisville KS to save on their weekly grocery shopping -- particularly now when a weeks groceries can cost $200 or more. Heck Mary and I often spend almost that, and there's just the two of us.

Expand full comment
11 more comments...

No posts