Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: geode00 who wrote (144241)	10/30/2008 1:29:27 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

You pay taxes in order to receive goods and services (mostly services) in return. No you don't. You pay taxes because you are forced to. It isn't a voluntary exchange. Much of the services I receive in return I would not pay for (pay the portion of taxes for), but I don't have a choice, or at least not a real choice. If I move to another country I will be taxed there, also the IRS goes after Americans who live in other countries, even if they renounce their citizenship. If I live a life of poverty so that I don't have to pay income tax, the cost is greater than the cost of the tax. In any case I don't want to pay nothing and get nothing from the US government. A portion of what it provides is worth it. A modest portion is worth a lot more than it costs. what is it supposed to cut in order to be the right size? Cut the size of the military? Cut the size of regulatory agencies - which ones and by how much? Cut the size of the WH staff? Cut the number of rangers in national parks? A good start would be no new entitlements or other transfer programs, and then limit the growth of the existing ones. As for the military its declined greatly over time as a percentage of the economy (over a third in WWII, in the teens in Korea, as high as 9% in Vietnam, over 6% under Reagan, between 4 and 5% now if you include costs outside the defense budget, 3 to 4% if you don't) or as a percentage of government spending. Currently I wouldn't propose major additional cuts, but I would want to keep it from expanding as a portion of our economy. Some have argued for a 4% floor, I don't think there should be any such floor. If our economy grows well at some point in the future or defense spending should not automatically track its growth, but should be allowed to decline as a portion of our economy as has been the trend since 1944) Then it could and should cut out areas of regulation, and reduce or eliminate the departments and agencies that enforce them. (There might be areas where important new regulations are needed, but the overall burden of regulation should be reduced) Then it could eliminate almost all forms of subsidies, farm price supports, various corporate welfare programs, the milk compact etc. And it should be reluctant to take on any new areas of responsibility. Even if no programs where eliminated, exercising some discipline on current ones, and not starting new ones, would reduce the burden of government over time. At that point we can pause and reconsider before seeing if there is anything else that can be cut.