Politics
Out of context: Reply #13038
- Started
- Last post
- 33,770 Responses
- luckyorphan0
"but its common sense that less gov employees equal less gov debt" —deathboy
Aw see now you done it. I'd been pleasantly ignoring the Politics thread, waiting for a conversation to happen, and sure enough, I could rely on you, db, to at least put out a concept that required discussion. It's good to have you back in it, stirring it up.
Government debt only happens when its costs outweigh its revenues. A conservative/libertarian would probably argue that if you have less government, you'll have less debt. But the flip side of that argument is that if you raise taxes, you'll also eliminate the debt.
It's become abundantly clear that no one is willing to get rid of enough of their preferred areas of government to affect the budget significantly, and that the people more or less want most of the government that is in place. This is what happens with representative government—they elect people who make decisions, and then either keep them in or throw them out. But overall, the decisions made are done by those who have been empowered to make them. It's a mess, but it's what we got.
So, rather than suggest that the only way to lower debt would be to lay off more gov't workers and shrink gov't, a simple, valid argument could be made that the gov't should increase its revenue through higher taxes. For some, it's clear that the wealthy in our nation benefit far more than their contributions to the society. Therefore, raising their tax burden should at least be considered, if not implemented. After all, the wealthy used to be taxed at 70% of their income
There is no good reason why Warren Buffet should be taxed over 50% less than his secretary.
There is no good reason why earned income should be taxed more than interest income.
There is no good reason why people of immense wealth due to no work of their own should continue to be taxed at a very low rate (see "Born Rich", directed by Johnson & Johnson heir Jamie Johnson).
The society has provided a system in which they have become wealthy. For some, it is due to their ingenuity. But the opportunity that was provided to them in which they could capitalize on their abilities was provided by the society in the first place, and they should forever be obliged to pay a large portion of their wealth back into the society on an annual basis as a way of showing gratitude.
Of course, that's the left-leaning approach to lowering the gov't debt. Tax the rich. But a sensible approach would be to BOTH raise taxes and make gov't as efficient as possible, until you find a good balance, and can balance the budget. The society should pay for the gov't it wants, but it should effectively moderate its needs and desires at the same time.
In the end, you have to admit that the GOP are never interested in balanced budgets unless a Democrat is in the white house. The record is clear on that.
- got find a balance for sure. wotn happen when voters respond only to party freebies********
- and actually doesn't the top10% pay like 85-90% of all taxes. but its in their interest to protect the lower class********
- but only to an extent. thats doesnt mean they can be bled dry. has to keep a symbiotic relationship going were both gain********
- True on all counts, but it's fair to suggest that the wealthy should take care of the society.luckyorphan
- got find a balance for sure. wotn happen when voters respond only to party freebies