Small government

[Goshin]

Set the tax rate at the pre Reagan rate (70%) for a couple of years to get this ship we call “OUR COUNTRY” back on the proper course.

.

Yeah, if you want to kill the economy off entirely.

 

[phattonez]

Set the tax rate at the pre Reagan rate (70%) for a couple of years to get this ship we call “OUR COUNTRY” back on the proper course.

And how exactly is such a high tax rate a good thing? Besides being stupid for the economy, it makes no economic sense (ever heard of something called the Laffer Curve).

Close at least half of the overseas bases, Europe can defend itself thank you, Japan is quite capable of defending itself against N. Korea or China. Anyone else have anything to add feel free to kick in.

Just needed to say something here about Japan (not that I necessarily disagree about closing bases). Read the Wikipedia article about Japan.

"Japan's military is restricted by the Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, which renounces Japan's right to declare war or use military force as a means of settling international disputes."

 

[Yossarian]

Yeah, if you want to kill the economy off entirely.

It'd reduce the national debt. Which would be a good start.

 

[Goshin]

It'd reduce the national debt. Which would be a good start.

so would cutting spending by 50%.

 

[phattonez]

It'd reduce the national debt. Which would be a good start.

Don't mind me.

Note that this doesn't necessarily mean that the optimal tax rate is 50%.

 

[Yossarian]

Don't mind me.

Note that this doesn't necessarily mean that the optimal tax rate is 50%.

Yes I just looked up the Laffer curve then after your previous reference to it. However I found a couple of interesting things:

1. The Laffer curve has been cited by previous US governments who dramatically cut taxes (Reagan et al) when this action was theorised to increase tax revenue as per the curve. However, no such event occurred and tax revenue actually dropped. Leading to.....

2. The idea that US taxation levels could be well below optimum levels. For example, this optimal level in Sweden is 70%, well below taxation rates in the US iirc.

 

[Donc]

Yeah, if you want to kill the economy off entirely.

Kill the economy? Didn’t kill it in the 1950s,when it approached almost 90%!! Of course it was riddled with loopholes, which they closed in the 60s and 70s,which brought it to the 70% that it was when President Reagan came upon the scene.

Besides I wasn't saying make the 70% permanent just until we get this economy somewhat on course.Kinda like chipping in on a keg of beer. :2wave:

 

[phattonez]

Yes I just looked up the Laffer curve then after your previous reference to it. However I found a couple of interesting things:

1. The Laffer curve has been cited by previous US governments who dramatically cut taxes (Reagan et al) when this action was theorised to increase tax revenue as per the curve. However, no such event occurred and tax revenue actually dropped. Leading to.....

I don't think that it's all instantaneous. I think it also takes into account that high taxes stifle growth.

2. The idea that US taxation levels could be well below optimum levels. For example, this optimal level in Sweden is 70%, well below taxation rates in the US iirc.

Well it's hard to say. Has Sweden ever tried anything below 50%?

 

[Regicollis]

I don't think that it's all instantaneous. I think it also takes into account that high taxes stifle growth.

High taxes don't necessarily stifle growth. Although taxes in the US has been cut since Reagan, there has been no growth in real wages for Americans who are not part of the financial high clergy since the 70's. Real wages has been stagnant or dropping.

Another necessary consideration when talking about growth is that of ecology. Insisting on unlimited growth on a limited planet is a prescription for disaster.

Well it's hard to say. Has Sweden ever tried anything below 50%?

Of course Sweden has had taxes lower than that in the past. I don't know Swedish tax history that well but its neighbour country Denmark is comparable. When the income tax was introduced in 1903 a tax reform the highest tax bracket was 2,5 %. Back then the opulent were furious and claimed that these outrageously high taxes would stop all growth and bring the country to the poor house. Similar arguments were made when the tax rate was raised to 5 % in 1912 and for every subsequent rise in taxes ever since. Every time the wealthy predicted economic disaster.

The same thing happened for all social programs. When public schooling was introduced in the early 1800's the farmers who had to pay to build schools and would have to do without as much child labour as they were used to predicted that the economy would be devastated. All subsequent social programs for education, health care, unemployment insurance and pensions were criticised by the opulent for being way too expensive and far beyond what the economy could sustain. Also arguments were made that this public help would make the unwashed masses lazy and unwilling to work.

All these dire warnings proved to be untrue. Back in 1903 Denmark was effectively a third world country with a small class of extremely rich land owners who controlled society. The mass of people were utterly poor, children were malnourished and families were cramped together in small, cold and unhealthy abodes.

Then came the "economic disaster" of higher taxes and social welfare programs and these helped to gradually transform Denmark into one of the worlds richest, safest, happiest, least corrupt and most innovative countries. The economic disaster for the rich proved to be an economic miracle for the nation as a whole.

And what do libertarians offer today? They offer to take our respective countries a hundred years back in time to be ruled by the iron fist of laissez-faire capitalism. They offer to create the same legal and economic conditions that once has proven to result in mass poverty, hazardous work environments, child labour, pollution and massive social divides.

Libertarianism was tried once and it failed utterly for those who were not lucky enough to belong to the class of owners. Why would anyone in their right mind want to repeat this mistake?

 

[phattonez]

High taxes don't necessarily stifle growth. Although taxes in the US has been cut since Reagan, there has been no growth in real wages for Americans who are not part of the financial high clergy since the 70's. Real wages has been stagnant or dropping.

So much for welfare and home loan subsidies. But also, you compare the middle class home of 1980 and one of today and you tell me which one you'd rather live in. Yeah, we haven't exactly stagnated.

Another necessary consideration when talking about growth is that of ecology. Insisting on unlimited growth on a limited planet is a prescription for disaster.

And we have a ton of untapped resources just waiting for a technological advancement to extract them.

Of course Sweden has had taxes lower than that in the past. I don't know Swedish tax history that well but its neighbour country Denmark is comparable. When the income tax was introduced in 1903 a tax reform the highest tax bracket was 2,5 %. Back then the opulent were furious and claimed that these outrageously high taxes would stop all growth and bring the country to the poor house. Similar arguments were made when the tax rate was raised to 5 % in 1912 and for every subsequent rise in taxes ever since. Every time the wealthy predicted economic disaster.

When taxes go up that slowly, it's hard to show the negative effects of those bad tax policies.

The same thing happened for all social programs. When public schooling was introduced in the early 1800's the farmers who had to pay to build schools and would have to do without as much child labour as they were used to predicted that the economy would be devastated. All subsequent social programs for education, health care, unemployment insurance and pensions were criticised by the opulent for being way too expensive and far beyond what the economy could sustain. Also arguments were made that this public help would make the unwashed masses lazy and unwilling to work.

Rising incomes are more responsible for lower child labor than public education. Kids won't go to school if their family doesn't have enough money for food.

It's kind of hard to judge if public education has been worth it.

All these dire warnings proved to be untrue. Back in 1903 Denmark was effectively a third world country with a small class of extremely rich land owners who controlled society. The mass of people were utterly poor, children were malnourished and families were cramped together in small, cold and unhealthy abodes.

Then came the "economic disaster" of higher taxes and social welfare programs and these helped to gradually transform Denmark into one of the worlds richest, safest, happiest, least corrupt and most innovative countries. The economic disaster for the rich proved to be an economic miracle for the nation as a whole.

Denmark was relatively unaffected by WWI as far as I know. I'm sure that the disaster from war gave them an upper hand by allowing them to help in rebuilding Europe.

And what do libertarians offer today? They offer to take our respective countries a hundred years back in time to be ruled by the iron fist of laissez-faire capitalism. They offer to create the same legal and economic conditions that once has proven to result in mass poverty, hazardous work environments, child labour, pollution and massive social divides.

The economic advances that lifted people out of farms with no running water and no electricity to cities with clean water and plentiful electricity. How terrible.

Libertarianism was tried once and it failed utterly for those who were not lucky enough to belong to the class of owners. Why would anyone in their right mind want to repeat this mistake?

Because socialism leads to stagnation.

 

[EpicDude86]

A lot of people on the right seem to be obsessed about having a "small government". But what kinds of government services should be slashed to reduce the size of government?

The usual rightist prescription is to cut and underfund the government programmes that actually help people; health services, social services, public transit etc.

But what about starting the reduction of government spending by cutting funding for those government programmes that hurt people like military and prisons?

Especially the US could save a lot of money by harming people less. Does the US really need military spendings over twice the size of the entire EU? Does the US really need a prison population of 756 prisoners per 100.000 citizens while a country like Canada can make do with only 107?

Is it necessary to spend so much harming people in times where cuts in government spending is in so high demand among rightists?

In my own research I've found most Right wingers favor Smaller CENTRAL or FEDERAL Government and stronger State and Local. Mainly because States and Local governments are:
1) more in tune with their constituents and the needs of their Regions and
2) They can be monitored and patrolled easier than the Federal level can.

There are these things called the Enumerated Powers and I think the Federal Government should stick to them or ask the States themselves to agree on certain powers to be granted to the Federal Government. I believe we are a Republic of Sovereign States acting in Union, not a Sovereign Nation that grants its States the right to exist. While there IS the Necessary and Proper clause, it has been stretched (get it, Elastic clause, haha) to grant the Federal Government certain powers under the guise of necessity or whatever you'd like to call it. This is where Minimal Central Government comes in. Things that it would make less sense for States to do (Too many chefs in the Kitchen type scenarios) such as a Standing Military, Foreign Relations, etc.