Whats so surprising to me is the willingness of so many people to allow the government (i.e. people with their own interests) to have such control over people's lives while they're so skeptical of the organizations of business and its influence on the lives of people. At least with most businesses (i.e. McDonalds or Walmart etc.) its a choice to work or eat or shop there, whereas with the government we have no choice but to pay our taxes. So many people want to give the government the ability to dictate and 'prod' us into the social, economic, health lives they desires?! Thats really troubling and shows a real change in the perspective of this nation.
True, but I think its safe to assume in most cases if a company is actually making profit and able to save it, there is enough consumption to warrant growth. All companies? I guess I've been missing my calling. Just start a business of any kind and I'll be flush with cash!
Who said anything about overspending? Who said anything about there not being a happy medium? Spending is required to create growth. Even if you want to say savings are good because you can expand later, that growth occurs when you actually spend. If you want to say saving is good because it allows banks to lend more, that money being lent is being spent for growth. Spending is necessary.
Nobody should be skeptical of business screwing over the public good to make money. McDonalds and Walmart are excellent examples. When people's ****ty choices cost the tax payers then the government should play a role curbing ****ty behavior. I wish the government had prodded us much earlier not to smoke cigarettes. Instead, private business made a fortune, millions of lives were ruined and lost, and government paid the bill in health costs. That's what this naive idea of liberty and capitalism too often brings us.
I picked "other" because I think we should consider all three and balance between them. As noted in the OP there are both benefits and drawbacks to each and relying on one greatly increases the drawbacks of those.
Taxes are not only used for government spending, taxes are also a measure of stimulating and r****ding the economy when necessary. If you turn the income tax into a sales tax you are completely destroying the ability to control monetary policy through tax. A tax on wealth damages consumer confidence more than a tax on income would. As its hitting people directly in their savings and most people will feel the need to make up the difference by saving more. Great for inflationary situations, but not good for recessions. Of course it doesn't destroy the ability for taxes to be used as a measure of monetary policy but its definitely not as flexible as a tax on income. Income tax is the lesser evil of the three.
If taxes go up and I have less money to save, how do savings depress if the amount saved remains the same? In such a case, the rate saving goes up. This has nothing to do with taxation.
You're being a little too polite using the word "modern." Tax and the state they support is a hedge against sectarian or mob violence, murder or rape: committed not to resolve differences, but simply to acquire goods and exert their own identity. Violence and theft are the default functions in an ungoverned group.
Not those same numbers but I would consider shifting the Federal Tax burden away from income to other means.
Tax on wealth. Those with a lot of wealth need to pay for their share of their wealth being protected by courts, jails, education, etc.
Are you both so naive, ideological, and/or young to think y'all live in a vacuum? That government can't or shouldn't influence your behaviour? When you follow statutes and regulations, your behaviour conforms to the policy set by government. I apologize for the patronizing language, but it's as if both of you live in an alternate reality where others influencing your lives is hell. Wake up. It's civilization. There are no bright-line rules on what extent other people have on your lives. As for prodding, I dislike anarchy. Both of you do too. Don't pretend otherwise. Unlike y'all, I've seen firsthand places where government can't prod people to do anything. Neither you or your family would like to live in those countries. If anyone wants an informed analysis of this issue, go to websites of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) and Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR.org). The D&D has very few people who've studied political philosophy, and even fewer who've studied high-level economics.
If you have to tax, tax something bad. You can be against carbon taxation, but I hope most people could be convinced that it makes sense if you use the revenue to fund a reduction in payroll taxes. Taxes always affect incentives — isn't it better to discourage pollution than to discourage work?
No. What the government spends on health care costs for tobacco is certainly more than what is collected in taxes.
Net Worth Tax, decide the budget for the next year, estimate today's net worth of corporations and individuals and the percentage tax needed, tax accordingly. Publicly execute scofflaws. Guillotine, I think.
