posted
Washington Post on the effects of not reaching a deal.
Is it really likely Moody's would downrate us to AA by mid-late July if progress isn't made? That seems extreme.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reading the article, they only say they'll begin a process in mid-late July for evaluating if the rating should be downgraded; that gives them plenty of time to see what happens on August 2nd while still reviewing.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Reading the article, they only say they'll begin a process in mid-late July for evaluating if the rating should be downgraded; that gives them plenty of time to see what happens on August 2nd while still reviewing.
I thought that's realistically what would happen, the article seemed unclear, tending towards alarmist on that point.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
McConnel is starting to read the writing on the wall.
Regarding what Obama will say going into reelection if no solution is settled on,
quote:“He will say Republicans are making the economy worse,” Mr. McConnell, who is recognized as one of his party’s top political strategists, said in an interview with the radio host Laura Ingraham.
“It is an argument that he could have a good chance of winning and all of the sudden we have co-ownership of the economy. That is a very bad position going into the election.”
That's exactly right, Republican 'co-ownership' of the economy is exactly what will be completely clear if this isn't resolved. Spending cuts are already on the table, but tax loophole closing won't even be considered. It's not hard to portray your opposition as being irresponsible, cynical and unpragmatic if they are essentially all three of those things.
It seems terrifying that at this moment, the Republican party honestly seems stuck and unable to move. Establishment Republicans like Boehner thought it would be business as usual and that a deal would ultimately be reached, Michelle Bachmann has decided to jump on the Tea Party train and is trying to call a bluff that honestly I don't think anybody is making right now. She's basically saying, "I've been in the senate a long time, this is all a ruse, I'm voting no no no, don't worry, nothing bad will happen."
It's so stupid that this is going on. What ultimately is becoming horribly clear is that no deal can be made, the Republican party does not have a concensus within their own party, there really are fools willing to see what happens when Aug 2 comes along.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I thought that's realistically what would happen, the article seemed unclear, tending towards alarmist on that point.
The article the WP linked about the potential downgrade, I mean. The WP article is pretty alarmist (well, there's a lot to be alarmist about the possibility of the US going down in rating, but it isn't quite as likely as the article makes it seem. What all the ratings agencies have basically said is if the debt ceiling isn't raised in time, the rating is probably going down).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Reid says Cantor is the only obstacle to a deal being made. Washington Post
Cantor stands to gain financially if American Bonds are downgraded to AA from AAA.
It's quite possible Cantor shorted the treasury as many have based on the belief the economy is going to get worse before it gets better. It's also possible he simply has accountants managing his investments that are operating on that philosophy. But it is also possible he is fully cognizant that he himself stands to gain financially if no deal is reached, and that he can also utilize the fallout politically by trying to spin the narrative and insist he was just sticking to his refusal to raise taxes, and that ultimately Obama is the one who let our rating drop.
posted
I dunno, at $15,000 with an ETF that only moves -200%, I have to think that there would be easier ways to make money from (potential) corruption.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The financial gains thing is a complete nonstory. He's got millions in investments set to move the other way if treasuries do badly; this is a small, sensible hedge to moderately counteract the impact of a drop in US ratings. He'd still lose considerable money, just less than if he didn't have the hedge.
In fact, I'm more worried that there are people in Congress with lots of money tied up in investments who don't have hedges like this. It's a smart financial move to make, given the uncertainty about the future of US ratings.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Can the President simply just sign an executive order to raise the debt ceiling?
IP: Logged |
edit: I'm sure someone can make an argument the other way, but I'm pretty sure which way it would come out. The big question is less whether he can raise the debt ceiling or not and more how much discretion he has in picking which spending gets cut.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a pretty simple solution really. No spending money that doesn't exist.
Apocalypse inbound. for the record, I saw this coming. I told the guy sitting next to me at the time when I thought of it in 2008. His name, ironically enough, was Noah.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:One more thing; if one is interested in reducing unemployment, and increasing wages in real terms, what are some of the popular theories about doing so?
Doing both at once is the especially fun part . Some measures I'm coming around to are increased mandatory paid vacation time, stricter enforcement of existing overtime laws, and increases in tax rates at the top end.
Do you think reducing the work week along with these measures would be of further help?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not so hot on reducing the work week, overall. Work weeks are already pretty well protected for lower level employees (in that employers have to pay them overtime -- note I call for more enforcement of that), and for higher level employees the work week seems more dominated by industry norms (that don't seem out of line, globally, and will probably continue somehow whatever legislation attempts). Additionally, I think the extra work week crunch that is happening right now is more a symptom of trying to do more with less staff. The redundancy required by more vacation time should ameliorate that pressure indirectly.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to point out that President Obama voted against raising the debt limit before he was president, so using the argument that "it has been raised before so what is the problem now?" is kind of lame.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
And President Obama has said that he was wrong to do so. Also, we weren't in a (or just barely climbing out of) a recession at the time.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I'd like to point out that President Obama voted against raising the debt limit before he was president, so using the argument that "it has been raised before so what is the problem now?" is kind of lame.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And President Obama has said that he was wrong to do so. Also, we weren't in a (or just barely climbing out of) a recession at the time.
So in other words, the President is just learning this stuff as he goes along.... Alright, good to know.
Jon, while yes it is a fallacy, it still applies. I'm all for people changing their positions, but the reason I brought it up is because it shows the President has no idea what he is doing. He has changed positions so many times it makes him look weak and unsure what he is doing.
quote: So in other words, the President is just learning this stuff as he goes along....
Well, if people could only elect candidates who already knew all there was to know about being president (and/or were psychic), the list of possibilities would be kind of short.
And I'd have thought it would be nice to have someone who might actually learn from their mistakes. But there you go.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I'd like to point out that President Obama voted against raising the debt limit before he was president, so using the argument that "it has been raised before so what is the problem now?" is kind of lame.
Oh sweet heavens above, I have so needed a term for this concept. It feels positively liberating to finally have one. Thanks!
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So in other words, the President is just learning this stuff as he goes along.... Alright, good to know.
Just to clarify, she says, "Yes, he opposed it when circumstances were (drastically) different," with the clear implication that opposing it in one instance and then in another very *different* instance isn't necessarily contradictory.
Your response, "So he's learning it as he goes!"
C'mon, man. That is so...so *partisan* and just bizarre an exchange that I'm surprised at you, Geraine. It really appears-because your zinger doesn't at all apply to what was said-that you arrived with your mind made up, and little things like, y'know, context arent about to be considered.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Jon, while yes it is a fallacy, it still applies.
Um . . . how, exactly? The fact that he voted one way before has no bearing on the question of whether or not we need to raise the debt ceiling <i>now</i>. Unless you just want to consider emotional appeals rather than logical ones.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only way it would count (for rational, not political reasons) that he voted one way before and is proposing different methods now, it seems to me, is if circumstances were identical or at least similar.
If they are, then by all means the call of flip-flop! is fair game. But (to get really simplistic, since it seems that's what we're doing), just because I oppose wearing a rain coat on a hot sunny day doesn't make me some sort of hypocrite if I wear one in a deluge.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are right Rakeesh, it was a partisan statement. My apologies. I guess I'm just frustrated with this whole ordeal. I get passionate and lose my wits at times.
Does anyone know why the Democrats are opposing a balanced budget amendment? I've tried to look for a reason why but I can't. I assume it is the other stuff in the bill Republicans are proposing. A balanced budget amendment just makes sense to me.
It isn't like this just popped up all of the sudden. We have had years to deal with this. For both parties to wait this long to try and get something done a couple of weeks before the deadline is pretty stupid.
I'm actually torn as to whether or not I agree with the debt ceiling being raised. At what point do we say enough is enough? What GOT us here in the first place? I think people are trying to fix this without really explaining to the American people how we got this much debt. Obviously spending is still an issue. Many think the Government should be spending more, but I see this as perpetuating the problem.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The only way it would count (for rational, not political reasons) that he voted one way before and is proposing different methods now, it seems to me, is if circumstances were identical or at least similar.
It seems to me that the same argument works both ways.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geraine, there are(at least) two ways to address a deficit. One is to cut spending. Another way is to raise taxes. Now. Raising taxes on the middle class makes little sense when we want to put more money into the economy. That is because people without a lot of money to spend, spend what they have. Cutting government spending when we want to put more money into the economy is also a bad idea because government spending is still spending and that puts money into the economy. It doesn't just vanish, it goes to buy things and pay people. (Well maybe we could stop paying off Afgan warlords and such but that is another problem.)
And cutting government assistance now, when people are hurting because of unemployment would cause people to suffer.
The time to cut spending is when the economy is good.
Now. What does make sense is a reasonable tax on people who already have more money than they can spend.
I am reasonably sure that Democrats would be willing to compromise on a bill that included getting rid of the tax cuts on the very wealthy.
Do you know why the Republicans are adamantly opposing raising taxes on the very rich?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geraine, the reason this deadline is more important is because the House is forcing the issue. They control the purse-strings, after all. There is no procedural reason why we can't raise the debt ceiling right now in the same way we have done it in the past, and deal with the cuts/taxes separately.
Here's my take on why we are here, and why no one wants to explain it.
It's easy to see major factors (I do not claim this list is complete) as to why the debt is what it is now.
- Two (now a couple smaller ones more) wars funded by debt, essentially. And until the current president were kept off the books (due to Congress and the previous president) - Tax cuts passed that were not matched by either revenue in other places (closing loopholes) or cut spending. - An aging population, with lower population growth, causing increased stress on Social Security and Medicare - A healthcare system that is the worst, by far, in terms of cost efficiency. This ties into the point above. - Funding a military industrial complex, instead of a military. - Worst economic downturn in 70+ years/Protracted elevation of the unemployment rate means continuing reduced revenue for the government from taxes.
Welfare (as in food stamps, unemployment benefits, housing subsidies) isn't the problem.
The Democrats have agreed to many more cuts than revenue increases (something like 3:1, if I recall). The Republicans (in the House, the Senate Republicans seem more willing, if support for the "Gang of Six"/Simpson-Bowles plan is taken at face value, which I do) are completely unwilling to vote for anything but the most token revenue increases.
After all, despite the richest of the rich paying a huge amount of the taxes, EVERYONE'S _federal_ tax burden is at it's lowest in forever. Lower than the 90s boom, the 80s boom, the 70s stagflation, etc...
We've gone to the Laffer Curve well enough times at this point that trying to use it as a justification again is, well, laughable. We need revenue hikes, whether from closing loopholes, eliminating/reducing deductions or simply raising taxes. We also need cuts, but the biggest places are Military, and health care. And the best solution [EDIT: for health care], given by the actual experience of the world, is NOT an employment-based private system, or even Obama's/Romney's/Early-90's Republican plan of universal coverage by fiat with exchanges. It's some form of single payer, anything to reduce total costs.
And realize that in the short-term, any cuts to the government budget will likely reduce growth of the economy in the near term. If cut deep enough, it could even push the economy back into a recession.
Essentially, the House Republicans are calling for austerity measures of the kind implemented in England and other places in response to the financial crisis. Notably, these countries are currently growing more slowly than the US. That said, it may be that the short term (5 years or so) pain of the measures may lead to faster growth later. That said, what do you tell the millions of citizens out of work that they just need to hang on for another few years, and things should be rosy, probably? Oh, and btw, your unemployment runs out in about a year. Oh, it is shown that the chronically unemployed are likely the last folks to regain decent jobs once the economy does pick up (this is likely a human nature kind of issue, which no Congress can effectively control).
In case you haven't noticed, any solutions (left wing/right wing) are going to tick off large swaths of the populace. The solutions have trade-offs.
That's why no one wants to explain it. It's complicated and there isn't a free lunch.
quote:Raising taxes on the middle class makes little sense when we want to put more money into the economy. That is because people without a lot of money to spend, spend what they have. Cutting government spending when we want to put more money into the economy is also a bad idea because government spending is still spending and that puts money into the economy.
There is no way out of the deficit for the foreseeable future without either cutting government spending or raising taxes on a substantial part of the middle class.
Also, while it is anemic, we're in an economic "boom" right now, not a bust. What we're looking at as the next part of the cycle is a *further* downturn (probably not a very bad one, as we didn't go "up" much) -- though nobody knows when, or if the "boom" will become more of an actual boom first. Now is quite possibly the *most* feasible time for spending cuts or tax increases for the next ten years-ish, and we definitely need to act within that time frame, at least some.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We may be defining middle class differently. I am mostly talking here about people who are just getting by and who can't really squeeze much more out for taxes.
Which probably isn't a good use of the term. I need to break it down into smaller pieces.
Using myself as an example: I pretty much live paycheck to paycheck but don't buy anything on credit and have no debt but medical bills. I rent and my rent and utilities take up a little more than a third of my take home pay. I am saving for a sofa but have little savings other than my employer retirement account. Yes, I know the way I manage my money is appalling, but my point is that I could pay a little bit more in taxes and still buy "stuff" and increase demand. People who couldn't manage to pay their bills and still buy some "stuff" shouldn't have their taxes raised. People who already can buy tons of stuff but who have lots of money left over should have their taxes raised.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:We may be defining middle class differently. I am mostly talking here about people who are just getting by and who can't really squeeze much more out for taxes.
That's never really been the definition of middle class. That's pretty much the definition of *poor* (though you probably mean "just getting by" differently).
Middle class is very hard to define, but there's pretty broad agreement that households of two to four people earning $40k to $95k a year fall into the middle class. An individual earning $25k per year would frequently be considered middle class, especially in rural and smaller urban areas. In some areas, an individual earning $100k per year would still be considered middle class.
quote:People who already can buy tons of stuff but who have lots of money left over should have their taxes raised.
If you want to address the deficit without moderately substantial spending cuts, you're looking at tax increases that extend at least down to $80k a year in household income. While there would be larger tax increases on people earning more income, there aren't enough of them to take care of the deficit.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: You are right Rakeesh, it was a partisan statement. My apologies. I guess I'm just frustrated with this whole ordeal. I get passionate and lose my wits at times.
Does anyone know why the Democrats are opposing a balanced budget amendment? I've tried to look for a reason why but I can't. I assume it is the other stuff in the bill Republicans are proposing. A balanced budget amendment just makes sense to me.
It isn't like this just popped up all of the sudden. We have had years to deal with this. For both parties to wait this long to try and get something done a couple of weeks before the deadline is pretty stupid.
I'm actually torn as to whether or not I agree with the debt ceiling being raised. At what point do we say enough is enough? What GOT us here in the first place? I think people are trying to fix this without really explaining to the American people how we got this much debt. Obviously spending is still an issue. Many think the Government should be spending more, but I see this as perpetuating the problem.
Geraine: You may not think this, but it seems like you equate the debt ceiling with say the card limit on a credit card. They aren't the same thing.
The debt ceiling does not dictate how much money the government can spend, rather it indicates how much debt the government intends to honor. In this particular instance, the government has already allocated or to use a crude word, spent these funds. Refusing to raise the ceiling does not force the government to balance it's cheque book. Rather, we are saying the credit of the US Treasury is not willing to actually pay on these debts.
As far as a balance budget ammendment goes, it sounds like a great idea in theory, the government only spends that which it has money to spend. But in reality it would mean that if there are unforseen costs that need to be paid that are not a part of that budget tough cookies do without. If you needed a loan for emergency heart surgery, would you feel comforted if your bank said, "I'm sorry sir, you asked us not to authorize use of funds that are not a part of your stated budget, but we laud your fiscal responsibility."
Some of the most critical expenditures in our history have required us to take on debt. The Louisiana Purchase, the space program, WWI/WWII. Could we simply have the congress authorize use of these emergency funds if the situation required it? Yes, but if we are being practical that means Congress has to decide together whether to act quickly and efficiently, and a Democracy is not a good vehicle for that sort of thing. It would mean that congressmen and congresswomen would play their petty games by witholding votes for an important expenditure just because they could. Sending the Air Force to Libya? Not this time. Expanding Unemployement benefits in a recession. Sorry Jack.
It makes more sense to keep Congress involved with authorizing the final budgets as submitted by the Executive Branch, but giving the Executive Branch the leeway it needs to make sudden quick decisions with the funds it has been given.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:We may be defining middle class differently. I am mostly talking here about people who are just getting by and who can't really squeeze much more out for taxes.
That's never really been the definition of middle class. That's pretty much the definition of *poor* (though you probably mean "just getting by" differently).
Middle class is very hard to define, but there's pretty broad agreement that households of two to four people earning $40k to $95k a year fall into the middle class. An individual earning $25k per year would frequently be considered middle class, especially in rural and smaller urban areas. In some areas, an individual earning $100k per year would still be considered middle class.
quote:People who already can buy tons of stuff but who have lots of money left over should have their taxes raised.
If you want to address the deficit without moderately substantial spending cuts, you're looking at tax increases that extend at least down to $80k a year in household income. While there would be larger tax increases on people earning more income, there aren't enough of them to take care of the deficit.
If I were making $80k a year, I could (should) pay a lot more in taxes without severe hardship. I make about $45k now. Of course, I don't have children to consider. I live in an urban area if that makes a difference.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I were making $80k a year, I could (should) pay a lot more in taxes without severe hardship. I make about $45k now. Of course, I don't have children to consider. I live in an urban area if that makes a difference.
You'd already be paying a good bit more in taxes, of course .
You'd see your taxes go up a decent bit in any tax-increase based deal to majorly reduce the deficit (your earnings are higher, a lot higher, than a three or four person household earning $80k in a similar location). If you feel you don't have the wiggleroom for that (I suspect you do, given your description of your spending habits; you probably have at least $10k more of discretionary income before taxes than a typical family of three earning $80k per year, but I don't feel that means the gov't needs to take that away), then your only alternatives are to not support all that much deficit reduction or to support spending cuts (in addition to some tax increases on the higher end).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't there a third way? Couldn't we let deficit reduction wait until after the current slump is over, and people are making more money as a whole?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Isn't there a third way? Couldn't we let deficit reduction wait until after the current slump is over, and people are making more money as a whole?
Unfortunately,
quote:while it is anemic, we're in an economic "boom" right now, not a bust. What we're looking at as the next part of the cycle is a *further* downturn (probably not a very bad one, as we didn't go "up" much) -- though nobody knows when, or if the "boom" will become more of an actual boom first. Now is quite possibly the *most* feasible time for spending cuts or tax increases for the next ten years-ish, and we definitely need to act within that time frame, at least some.
edit: and I did mention the third way, with "not support that much deficit reduction" Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope I have not given the impression that there can be no spending cuts. I do think that most spending cuts other than Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid or defense are small drops in the bucket, but certainly there is some fat and waste to be trimmed in any budget.
I don't think we can morally cut Social Security or Medicaid/Medicare but I would be fine with a raise in retirement age and need testing. And we should lift the cap.
Not wasting (what are we up to now?) $1,225,000,000,000 on stupid wars would have been a good idea, too. We should skip that in the future.
Perhaps more gentle deficit reduction?
Just out of curiosity, why are we looking at a further downturn next?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't think we can morally cut Social Security or Medicaid/Medicare but I would be fine with a raise in retirement age and need testing.
I'd be overjoyed by the latter, but probably not OK with the former. It seems to me that the retirement age is too high right now for people whose jobs involve much physical labor.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think we can morally cut Social Security or Medicaid/Medicare but I would be fine with a raise in retirement age and need testing. And we should lift the cap.
For social security, raise the retirement age slightly and add means testing and that is a spending cut (and a perfectly fine spending cut at that). I'd also like to decrease the social security tax rate while removing the cap on taxed income, leaving it revenue neutral, though that isn't a spending cut, just making things less regressive.
quote:Just out of curiosity, why are we looking at a further downturn next?
The economy moves in "boom" and "bust" cycles. That just means improving or declining. Right now we're improving, so the next cycle will be a bust. It might be the boom becomes stronger first, of course, but signs aren't pointing that way, and a boom only lasts six or seven years. We're in year two since the GDP started moving up again, so we have perhaps four or five years of increase (quite possibly slow increase, at least for most of them) left before the next bust. Imposing spending cuts and tax increases in or a year or two before a bust would be a very bad idea, so we're talking about implementing them over the next two to three years, at latest, pretty much, and since the economy's not doing all that fantastic, either, that means passing them now and phasing them in over that time period.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
All of that makes sense even if it is a tad depressing. I would guess that employment isn't kind enough to lag as much on the downward slide as it does on the upward climb.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It does somewhat, but even so it's a bad idea to raise taxes and cut spending right then: it'd accelerate the loss of employment, right when that'd be the worst thing.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Am I understanding that there isn't anything we can do to alter the timing of these cycles? That there are cycles makes sense; that we can't affect those cycles makes less sense.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We can flatten them, or exacerbate them, as far as history seems to tell. And there have inevitably been unintended consequences.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm certain we can and do affect the timing. However, I'm also pretty certain that the interactions are so hideously complicated, and the instruments we have available to manipulate the situation so gross in scale, that even if we understood about it a heck of a lot better, we still wouldn't be able to manipulate it with intent.
We can definitely affect their size with some intent, though, and we know a decent bit about how to do that. It just turns out that increasing the heights of booms increases the depths of busts, and decreasing the depths of busts decreases the heights of booms (the latter situation is the goal of neo-Keynesian economics). Timing, though, is extremely difficult, in large part due to the interactions with politics. Measures intended to decrease busts can end up boosting booms, and leading to bigger busts down the road, and so forth.
edit: plus, the political willpower to retard booms sufficiently to improve busts a lot has proven almost impossible to come by (unsurprisingly).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want to weigh in on these debates, but the more effort I've put in, the more I've realized that loads of really smart people dedicated their lives to studying them still don't really know anything for sure.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
. Some measures I'm coming around to are increased mandatory paid vacation time, stricter enforcement of existing overtime laws, and increases in tax rates at the top end. 
