Not enough. And as he notes, the Democrats are completely hopeless.
5 thoughts on “How Much Credibility Does The GOP Have On Taxes?”
Not true!
The Democrats have a great deal of credibility on taxes…
They will raise them…
The optimal level of taxation (and thereby size of government) is at the point where the opportunity cost (with regard to the overall economy) of a dollar spent on government equals the opportunity cost of a dollar spent in the private sector. Large governments do work in some first world countries, but only because they are very efficient. Government in the US is becoming increasingly inefficient which is forcing it to be increasingly downsized. While government inefficiency continues to increase the mandate for tax revenue will continue to decrease.
So if the Democrats want higher taxes and larger government, then they need to first develop more efficient government (better/simpler taxation, regulation, wealth redistribution, etc.). The Democrats should be intensively reforming government departments to make them more efficient so that they can then make them bigger.
I’m stuck on the chart that indicates that tax revenue tracks 20% of GDP exceedingly well.
I’m very curious how it reacts to ‘mandates’ as opposed to ‘taxes’.
Like: A hypothetical retirement tax = 10%. If you put 8% of your pre-tax income into your personal qualified tax-exempt account, the retirement tax is waived.
Now:
This does none of the standard heavy redistributionism of what we’ve got now – but it’s also going to basically be “zero percent, or damn near” as far as how much the government actually has to either collect or distribute.
It doesn’t seem like it should count against the “20%”
I didn’t trust McCain not to raise taxes. However, I think McCain would have been more responsive to the electorates howl about doubling the national debt with a trillion dollars more spending. Obviously, he’d been suckered into doing the first year, but 2 years and potentially 3 years? I don’t think even McCain would have done it. Again, he’d might raise taxes, but there’s a lot of room due to magnitude in both spending and taxing.
I agree which is why I voted for him. Pity all those Tea Party types appeared to be AOL in the election and are now unhappy with the result.
Not true!
The Democrats have a great deal of credibility on taxes…
They will raise them…
The optimal level of taxation (and thereby size of government) is at the point where the opportunity cost (with regard to the overall economy) of a dollar spent on government equals the opportunity cost of a dollar spent in the private sector. Large governments do work in some first world countries, but only because they are very efficient. Government in the US is becoming increasingly inefficient which is forcing it to be increasingly downsized. While government inefficiency continues to increase the mandate for tax revenue will continue to decrease.
So if the Democrats want higher taxes and larger government, then they need to first develop more efficient government (better/simpler taxation, regulation, wealth redistribution, etc.). The Democrats should be intensively reforming government departments to make them more efficient so that they can then make them bigger.
I’m stuck on the chart that indicates that tax revenue tracks 20% of GDP exceedingly well.
I’m very curious how it reacts to ‘mandates’ as opposed to ‘taxes’.
Like: A hypothetical retirement tax = 10%. If you put 8% of your pre-tax income into your personal qualified tax-exempt account, the retirement tax is waived.
Now:
This does none of the standard heavy redistributionism of what we’ve got now – but it’s also going to basically be “zero percent, or damn near” as far as how much the government actually has to either collect or distribute.
It doesn’t seem like it should count against the “20%”
I didn’t trust McCain not to raise taxes. However, I think McCain would have been more responsive to the electorates howl about doubling the national debt with a trillion dollars more spending. Obviously, he’d been suckered into doing the first year, but 2 years and potentially 3 years? I don’t think even McCain would have done it. Again, he’d might raise taxes, but there’s a lot of room due to magnitude in both spending and taxing.
I agree which is why I voted for him. Pity all those Tea Party types appeared to be AOL in the election and are now unhappy with the result.