this was the 1st election i was able to vote in and i have a question..
I was explaining my thinking to a prof and it was a little like this:
Prof: on the eve of the election, give me a quick rundown of what you are thinking before you send in your ballot
ME:The problem is the gov is not taking in enough money to support these programs and whatever else it's spending on (infastrucure I assume). If we want to chip away our deficit, we need to either 'A' cut these programs down to an affordable level, or 'B' the gov needs to take in more money, which means higher taxes and additional revenue. when our defecit is down and we become profitable again, THEN taxes can go back down/ programs can recieve more funding."
I forgot to mention that there could be a happy middle between A and B, but you get the idea..
or am i over simplifing it? I have no loyalties to any party, and even debated in favor of getting rid of them altogether.
Originally Posted by: RajiRoar
Yes and no, RajiRoar. If you are talking about a fixed pie of wealth, yes. The only way to get there is to spending cuts or tax increases. And therefore the entire question boils down to "who do you take from" (the rich, presumably) and "who do you give to" (presumably, not the rich).
But, and this is what people always seem to forget. The pie isn't necessarily fixed. It can either grow or shrink. If the economy grows, any given amount of spending (including debt payback) is "smaller" and more affordable and any given tax rate is going to collect more. On the other hand, if the economy falls, then you need bigger and bigger spending cuts and bigger and bigger tax increase.
Problem is, any tax increase tends to make the incentive to work and the incentive to invest in productive activity smaller. And if less people work and less is invested in productive activity, then the economy grows less or even shrinks.
No, DakotaT and vikesrule, I am not claiming that "rich" means "more productive". But the rich are the ones who decide whether to invest their money in productive enterprises or not. And the more you tax them, the less incentive they are going to have to play in the produce-and-grow game, and the more incentive they are going to have to spend their wealth in Paris Hilton-ish conspicuous consumption (almost completely worthless) or, worse, take it to Uruguay and Ecuador where it isn't as likely to be taken away.
And that means less growth, and less ability to pay the bills.
Of course, BO, never having had to be a real productive member of society, doesn't understand this.
If you want to improve society, your society has to put its wealth into productive activities like bee- and cattle-raising, steel and machine tool production, software engineering and new product development. And the only way that happens is if you given the people at that society the incentive to accumulate wealth by putting it into productive activity rather than non-productive activity.
Rather than give them more and more incentive to put their effort into the more or less non-productive activities of lawyers, college professors, grant writers, lobbying activists, and, of course, the most non-productive of all, politicians and government regulation drafters.
Other than perhaps, er, Sweden and France, the United States probably has a greater coefficient of correlation between the acquisition of "advanced degrees" and "total social ignorance" than any society in modern history.
Government is really good at printing and spending money. But it does very little to produce tradeable value that makes making more money a good thing. Money spent on steelworkers is productive. Money spent on government activity may be necessary. But it is not productive.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)