View Single Post
CamB CamB is offline
Moderator
 
CamB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 5,111
Garage
It's all very well to object to the wastage in Govt, but there needs to be more constructive criticism than "take the money away and they won't spend it".

I had another think about this topic overnight, and what occured to me, after reading about the widening gap between the rich and the poor (in the US) in our local paper, is the following.

The US undoubtably enjoys strong economic growth, thanks to abundant resources, open commerce, and (most importantly) a national attitude that fosters success and wealth creation.

However, the bottom half of your population by and large does not enjoy much, if any, benefit from this growth - the top half (and the top 5% even more so) appear to gain the lion's share of the improvement in GDP. Basically, while it is possible to go from poor to middle class, or from poor or middle class to rich, it is easier to go from rich to richer. The US (and all other countries to whom this applies) as the land of opportunity is very definitely split into those who can and cannot take part.

The increasing top end welath is the primary reason that those top earners pay a continually higher percentage of the total taxes. Put simply - their annual earnings are increasing very fast (compared to low income people who would see a few percent above inflation if they are lucky).

Given this, I personally am happy about the wealthy paying the lions share of the tax.

This is part II of the argument (whether a progressive tax system is fair). As I said above, I think Part I is what amount of tax is required to run the country.

By the way, it is interesting when you look at the actual breakdown of govt spending - consider those aspects of govt spending which apply to you, then those that don't --> you might be surprised at how little the amount you object to is.

I'm guessing you guys primarily object to the ~$200b of "Income Support Programs" (see this CBO link).

This is < 10% of the federal budget. If you eliminated 10% of this funding (lets say that equates to the number of people screwing the system and wastage), then you save about $20b, or 2.6% of income taxes. This might drop your average tax rate by 1%.

Now if you knocked 10% off the $500b set aside for the military...
__________________
1975 911S (in bits)
1969 911T (goes, but need fettling)
1973 BMW 2002tii (in bits, now with turbo)
Old 08-24-2004, 04:28 PM
  Pelican Parts Catalog | Tech Articles | Promos & Specials    Reply With Quote #44 (permalink)