"Don't raise Fed debt ceiling" means "Balance the Fed budget INSTANTLY"

[Dr.Who]

Only if we ran it like a business...a business would say hey we have a debt problem...we should see what costs can be cut...AND how to bring in more money...also they would not scream bloody murder at the idea of spending money to make money. Also they would not have to make all choices with both there consumer and workers voting on them keeping there jobs.

Both the dems and the pubs are trying to increase revenue. The dems are only looking at raising taxes to increase revenue while the pubs are looking at only at decreasing taxes to raise revenue. (though one could argue that neither side cares too much about revenue when a real goal is to increase governmental power).

Increasing taxes to raise revenue is the common sense approach but it has been proven not to work. Lowering taxes might not work at times too. We must ask WHEN each strategy works.

A long time ago there was a book called everything I needed to know I learned in kindergarden. Well, everything we need to know can be learned in the aisle at Wal-mart. Some things go on sale and some things get their prices raised. It all depends on how much people want a thing and how much it costs to provide it. A tax that is hugely unpopular and unfair will be evaded. Taxes that are fair and easy to comply with will be followed.

The gov needs to create taxes that are fair, easy to comply with, make sense so that phone taxes are related to laws about phones and not the Spanish-American War, taxes are not crushingly burdensome, the system is transparent and relatively free of corruption, the tax does not stifle freedom and damage the economy, and the product provided is actually wanted.

 

[Dr.Who]

Based on what?? Did you just pull that out of your ass? ANY taxes suppress economic activity, lose jobs, pile debt on people, take away freedom. The "optimial" tax is the MINIMUM necessary for the LEGITIMATE activities of government.

He said that based on my account of a study I read but lost the link for. In Europe (where they do not have states and fed but only one government) a university calculated that high taxes suppressed the economy while low taxes did not allow the government to perform the legitimate tasks of government. It was calculated that 17% was optimal. (the U.S. is close to 50% when we add all taxes)

I take anything that comes from one professor at one university with a grain of salt but at least it is a place to start - to actually consider the competing forces of crushing taxes versus need for government.

I think we can agree that there is some optimal point. But no one is looking for it or even trying to design a system that corrects to that level (which is what free markets do with prices).

Hmm? could we have a tax system where forces like market forces determine the various taxes?

 

[GenSeneca]

In Europe a university calculated that ... low taxes did not allow the government to perform the legitimate tasks of government.

In Europe, and nearly every university in the world, the concept of what constitutes "legitimate" tasks for government include a great deal that is NOT legitimate. The only legitimate purpose for government is the protection of individual Rights and that can be done for a fraction of the cost of what Europe considers the "legitimate" tasks for government.

Hmm? could we have a tax system where forces like market forces determine the various taxes?

Yes... But only after a second Revolutionary War that once again restricted government to it's legitimate purpose, the protection of individual Rights.

 

[Dr.Who]

In Europe, and nearly every university in the world, the concept of what constitutes "legitimate" tasks for government include a great deal that is NOT legitimate. The only legitimate purpose for government is the protection of individual Rights and that can be done for a fraction of the cost of what Europe considers the "legitimate" tasks for government.


Yes... But only after a second Revolutionary War that once again restricted government to it's legitimate purpose, the protection of individual Rights.

yep yea

 

[dogtowner]

Yes, math beats wishful thinking and partisan BS every time.

JFK was the first to apply this theory. Or was he a DINO ?

 

[PLC1]

JFK was the first to apply this theory. Or was he a DINO ?

He was an old school Democrat, before both parties were corrupted by money.

 

[Dr.Who]

He was an old school Democrat, before both parties were corrupted by money.

I suspect that political parties were corrupted way back when George Washington refused to be a part of them because they were corrupted. I suspect that before a party gets rolling it is already corrupted. And that the dems and the pubs have been corrupted since day one.