I do not mean any personal attack against you but saying that economic downturn ALWAYS means government should be cut is simply ludicrous and against every economic theory I have read. There are situations where government is taking up too much of the economy, but this is not at all the situation in the US at the present time. And lastly being educated does not necessarily mean you have your facts right.
I will concede point of not ALWAYS reducing. But I would love to see the economist who believes in growing the size of government during a recession defend his position.
As a matter of fact our government is at the highest percentage of GDP since World War II.
Not sure where the percentage enters dangerous territory. I do know I have not heard of a revolution starting because the people thought they were taxed too little.
No, but most do. You can always find a few contrarians in any field of study. Perhaps you were taught by some? Because there are contrarians does not make them right!
No, but doesn't make them wrong either. The quote I referenced earlier was from a co-Nobel Prize winner. That doesn't make him right, but it does make him credible.
So much of the innovation and productivity of the early 50s was through government fostering innovation.!
Hey, I'm all for fostering innovation, but that can also be done by the government getting out of the way of private innovators. Or...gasp...giving them taxbreaks for taking risk. I would put forth that the vast majority of innovation in the U.S. came from the private sector. Carnegie, Chrysler, Edison, Ford, are all examples.
Except the actual tax rates are quite low. Perhaps you missed the news report of GE not only not paying taxes but receiving a tax credit.
Yep. The facts support you here. So how do you explain the percentage of GDP. Could it be that our lower tax rates have in fact INCREASED government revenue? BTW, the answer is yes.
Except they did when said systems were implemented, especially for the elderly.
Point taken. Yes, there needs to be social safety nets. Just not for those who can support themselves.
And I think you are, in essence, repeating the myth of the welfare queen which I think is largely overblown. That said I don't think the social safety net is operated as well as it could be.
I assure you welfare abusers do exist, therefore not a myth. We could argue all day about the level of this problem and how much is too much. I am glad you agree it could be improved.
So a sales tax only on luxury items? In general sales taxes tend to hit the poor much harder than other sorts of taxes. There was more income equality when tax levels were MORE progressive, correlation doesn't equal causation but I don't know any evidence your proposal is one that will help the problem.
You know what...you're right. There is no evidence. Hasn't been tried yet.
But the problem is a flat tax is not actually equal..
I agree with you here. The rich get most their income from capital gains vs. income. (Two different tax codes.) The poor are almost entirely taxed on income. A flat 20% income tax would not really touch the top earners. I concede your point. I didn't propose a flat tax though.
No offense but I don't see how tying taxes to luxury spending would help, the rich would still be providing most of the income for government and the poor would still be providing little.
I agree, but it would provide incentive for saving at all levels. Besides, not much fun being rich if you can't spend it. To make things fairer, you could top the housing tax protection at the median house cost. Mansions would still be taxable.
I think the superior option is to implement real campaign finance reform (presumably changing out some supreme court) that stops the rich from buying their politicians and hands real power back to the people. Making election days into federal holidays so the working poor CAN actually vote. When I canvassed in the 2008 election I found quite a number of poor people that were unsure they could vote because they were working. I'm aware businesses are SUPPOSED to allow workers to vote, but often it simply doesn't happen.
Good idea.
As I said if said money is sitting in a bank account or a mutual fund or a stock option it's not going to do anything for anyone other than bankers and the rich person. Force the money into the economy and it works for everyone. That makes sense doesn't it?
Except that banks, stocks (mutual funds included) only make money when business grow or declare dividends. (Yes, some make money off of speculation, but much like gambling it only goes so far). At the end of the day investments do make their way back into the economy. Remember, most retirement accounts at all economic levels are tied to savings and investment. It's not just the rich.
Do you have a citation for this?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/taxes/tax-receipt
If you add national defense with interest on the debt with an estimated 20% admin cost across the Govt (which is actually very good...even the best non-profits are in this range) you get real close to 40% not going back into the economy.
What you just said doesn't make any sense. The lack of profit is a GOOD THING from the perspective of the taxpayer. You pay a minimum for the goods and services and there's no need to enrich someone in charge on top of paying expenses. Those expenses employ people which again must spend their money to stay alive funneling said money back into the larger economy. Privatizing parts of governments is usually a bad thing because of profit margins, if a profit must be made, government money must go into that profit margin as well. Of course some aspects of government can be effectively privatized but profit margin often is the problem.
Lack of profit in the government is ABSOLUTELY a good thing. Government's tend to go the other direction though, to wastefullness (or at least inefficiency).
