# Rendell FTL **URL:** \ **Category:** PittSpeed Off Topic\ **Created:** [February 5, 2007, 1:35pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/rendell-ftl/187860 "2007-02-05T13:35:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 6
**Author:** ![Bravada\_442](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/bravada_442/32/5982_2.png) [@Bravada\_442](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Bravada_442)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2007, 1:59pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/rendell-ftl/187860/6 "2007-02-05T13:59:54Z")
> [@lady problems.](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/lady-problems/27650/175): > > It’s still “cheating Peter to pay Paul”. Consumers make up more of a number of Pennsylvanians, and more tax revenue is generated through purchases other than real estate. It would be smarter to actually lower property taxes by a small margin and lower sales taxes together. > > The decrease in both taxes would more than make up for the lost tax revenues by creating more business, and spurring an economics growth. But then again certain political parties only see economics one way… tax tax tax While I don’t agree with what Rendell is doing, you are simply spouting economic theory that one would learn in a simple college level economics class. Just because a 1 or 200 level class SAYS that reducing taxes would spur economic growth, in actuality there are far more issues pertinent to it. So please, don’t just come out with a gross generalization that says “Lower Taxes! If you do, we’ll spend more!” because that is rarely, if ever, solely the case. --- _[View the full topic](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/rendell-ftl/187860)._