Alate_One
I am all for spirited discussion, but can you please refrain from the personal attacks on my education.
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.
As for supply side economics (perjoratively called 'trickle down') not all economists support your premise.
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!
To answer your point that there is a large disparity between the rich and the poor right now. I agree. I am not sure though how a tax and redistribute system fosters innovation and motivation.
So much of the innovation and productivity of the early 50s was through government fostering innovation.
The 'rich' become less motivated to do business or invest in the U.S. in order to avoid high tax rates.
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.
Poverty levels historically have not decreased due to welfare systems.
Except they did when said systems were implemented, especially for the elderly.
Are there examples where people have benefited and done better, absolutely. There are also examples of those who have taken advantage of the system and not done anything beyond the minimal effort to stay in the system. It is a cruel aspect of existence that hunger is often the greatest motivator. I am not against systems that protect the weakest among us. I am against systems that foster dependency.
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 think a better way of going after the disparity between the rich and poor is a consumption tax. This tax would not be applied to housing, food, or clothing (items that are necessary for living). Do away with the progressive income tax and replace it with a national sales tax and you will accomplish two things.
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.
All people share equally according to their means in support of the government.
But the problem is a flat tax is not actually equal.
As it is, the government is not responsive to the poorer tax brackets due to lack of power (read money to lobby, support election campaigns, etc.) By tying taxes to sales, you make it imperitive on politicians to grow the economy and foster job growth.
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 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.
I stand by my statements about the relationship between government and private sector. Do government workers pay for goods. Yes. No argument. But, the only reason they are doing that is because they first took money from the private sector that could have stayed in the private sector.
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?
One dollar in private sector spending turns into one dollar spent the in the private sector. One dollar given to the government in taxes is turned into about 60 cents in private sector spending. Remember, the government worker is not the only government expense.
Do you have a citation for this?
The government will never be as efficient as the private sector in fiscal responsibility. Why should they be? I will say it again, profit has no meaning to government.
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.
You make many valid points in your post. I promise to respect your intelligence. I only ask the same in return.
I'm not intending to insult anyone's intelligence, I responded to your ideas which do not appear to me to match your educational background.
