[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
First and foremost this is not a post about the subject of taxation. Please do not reply regarding that subject. This post is again about those 15% or so of the population who are incompetant in math and logic yet still have the audacity to think that their opinions on subjects that have a mathematical or logical component, can be highly trusted.

It doesn't matter if they happen to be right about a particular issue. If they are, it is either because they got lucky in their analysis or they came to their conclusion through some other means, usually observation, (and then try to find logical reasons to justify that usually correct conclusion). A recent example is Arnold Snyder's mainly correct tournament advice which he detracts from when he tries to explain why it works.

Glenn Beck showed that he was a member of this group when he aired a piece where he condescendingly "explained" why it is a good idea to lower taxes. Repeating the points made by George Bush and many others, he explained how putting more money in people's hands would help the econonomy. More specifically he claimed that tax rate decreases would help the economy to the point that total tax revenues would actually INCREASE. And again he makes this point with a "duh" implying that this should be obvious.

But wait. It is actual simple logic that this CAN'T be obvious. Do you see it? The argument has certain similarities to the refutation of Snyder's chip utility theory.

If cutting taxes by 20% will obviously increase total tax revenues, then why not, tack on a second decrease to raise revenues further? (Remember this is not a debate over whether that is a good thing.) And if that works, why not a third decrease?

Obviously this situation is not linear since revenue clearly must go down with very low or very high tax rates. There is a maximum point on the curve. And that maximum might very well occur at a tax rate below what we have now. But where that maximum is is surely not a simplistic question. If Beck happens to be right it doesn't change the fact that his analysis was flawed. An analysis he thought was obvious. Because he was to stupid to realize that his ineptidude in math and logic makes any of his opinions suspect.

[/ QUOTE ]


Man, Dave, you are really hung on this Snyder issue!!
Why?? You are my poker guru, and he is one of my blackjack gurus? Why fret over whatever you have been fretting over!? What does it matter? DS, we should begin a good, 2plus2 frontloading team. jk, i dont even know how to frontload! but i think mason wrote something about frontloading being the optimum strategy. dont remember the context. we could shuffle track, perhaps, instead, and use snyder's text as our guide! peace mr sklansky