Seems you're commenting more on the feasibility of surgical taxes rather than the effectiveness of them.
Which is fine; no disagreement there from me. But I'd also posit that government spending on the administrivia is a positive - it's yet another way to keep money moving and likewise keep momentum in the economy.
I guess my point is: the ideal would've been to surgically tax money out of the system, but since we can't (for all the reasons you and I both mentioned), the alternative was rates. And while I hear your point re: cutting spending, you're arguing its merits on the likelihood of it happening, not so much whether one's better than the other. And neither spending cuts nor surgical tax hikes would happen anyway, hence...
...rates. lol
tl;dr: we're saying the same thing. You're talking about which one's more feasible, I'm talking about which one would've probably been more ideal to maintain momentum.
Which is fine; no disagreement there from me. But I'd also posit that government spending on the administrivia is a positive - it's yet another way to keep money moving and likewise keep momentum in the economy.
I guess my point is: the ideal would've been to surgically tax money out of the system, but since we can't (for all the reasons you and I both mentioned), the alternative was rates. And while I hear your point re: cutting spending, you're arguing its merits on the likelihood of it happening, not so much whether one's better than the other. And neither spending cuts nor surgical tax hikes would happen anyway, hence...
...rates. lol
tl;dr: we're saying the same thing. You're talking about which one's more feasible, I'm talking about which one would've probably been more ideal to maintain momentum.