I suspect if you adopted Canada's policies, you'd end up with similar numbers. (I believe this is more than just federal btw)
That is more than federal if we are at 26.9%. If you take a look at the table I posted it will show that right before the Bush tax cuts the government collected 20.6% of the GDP and it dropped all the way to 16.1% and yet somehow even with the major recession the attacks on 9/11 threatened to put us into we did not fall into a recession. The GDP continued to grow, why? Then without any tax changes(and even some more decreases) the rate went back up to 18.5%, how did this happen? We had such "major" tax cuts yet it only affected it by 2% of the GDP. This also goes back to reasoning why government shouldn't be trying to take all it can from the people and ultimately ends up with whether they should be regulating our lives. A small government can easily get what needs to be done without even 10% of the GDP.
This is a logical fallacy; what if you lowered it to zero? would GDP be infinite? What if you raised it to 100%? would you still only take in the same percentage? It makes no sense, and is mathematically impossible.
Who is talking about zero? How is it not logical that if a businessman can keep a higher percentage of his reward that he is more likely to take the risk? Why would the equation go to infinite, would it not be linear for some magical reason? See, you have to take your arguments to the extremes to try and prove a point when simple logic says otherwise. If you were looking to invest, would you invest in a market that would only take 30% of your profit or would you invest in one that would take 70%? What about if there was another market that only took 10%, where would you invest? It's simple logic... You can try and say that each market is different, but would you then argue that there is no place as profitable to invest other than the United States? It seems to me that Hong Kong for example would be a much better place.
On investment, here is where higher tax rates lower investment. Say there is a stock/bond/company you are looking to invest in. Market predictions along with your predictions, you put the chances of the stock making X% this year at Y%. Now if you are investing with a 0% tax rate so long as (X+1)Y>1 you would figure to make money on the average investment. However with a 30% tax it turns the equation to (X-.3+1)Y>1. Now I know that isn't strictly how investment is done, but it is an example of the thought process that occurs naturally in every human. Risk vs reward and with a higher tax rate it either increases the risk(via businesses being invested in will have a tougher time surviving with more regulations and higher taxes) or decreases the reward.
Is there not too much freedom? What about no government, ie Anarchy; would that lead to more wealth creation, and everybody's boats rise?
Again with the extreme. Did I say no government? No...let see exactly what I said.
In the end my logic is as follows: Keep the government small and create an atmosphere that will foster economic growth.
Yes, small government creating an atmosphere for prosperity. What is so radical about that? It is exactly how this country became the powerhouse it is. Just like the Roman empire we are coasting on fumes of the old Republic or capitalist days in this case.
Just like in China; do you envy the Chinese labourer who throws themselves out of their dorm windows? Do Americans want to live like that?
Why do they throw themselves out of windows? Do they have the freedom we do in China Qz? First compare their freedom with our freedom, then we can talk about China.
Hard to say exactly, when you have millions of people transferring from government employment with 0 expenditures (in the army) to private sector, + burning their cash. After world wars is never a "fair" comparison, because the market forces at work are *completely* different than normal.
It seems that they did come back and things weren't recovering until taxes were decreased by half.
or, like Canada, maintaining a Health Care system that operates at 1/10th the per-capita expenditure of the US, yet with better overall results. Sure,
Better results? How about you list some stats that are actually better with Canadian healthcare. Check out cancer survival rates. Check out wait times for major surgeries. Check out the availability of pharmecutical drugs.
replace them strictly with a flat tax on assets & land holdings
Boy if that isn't a way to get people to take their money out of country I don't know what is. Tax land and suddenly nobody will be able to afford it causing the price of it to drop considerably(along with the wealth of most of the nation). Tax assets and everyone with mobile assets will take them out of the country. Businesses will incorporate out of country to make sure they can't get taxed on assets. You could probably desribe this moment as the mass exodus of wealth from the United States.
Most changes in the US tax system in the last 30 years have been about marginalizing the middle class; the "middle class" such as we know it has been shrinking, with more people being pushed below, and some people being pushed above; I suspect it's healthier to have a STRONG middle class, rather than larger lower class and small but strong upper class; And I would tend to use government and taxes and regulations to favour strengthening that middle -- there's a lot of tin-pot dictatorships in africa that can very clearly demonstrate why having a 100% discrepancy between your rich and your poor is a bad idea.
For some reason you equate freedom with destroying the middle class. Tell me, how was the middle class created in America? Would you say we were the first country in awhile to have a flourishing middle class? What regulations forced the middle class to appear rather than how the rest of the world had been behaving where they didn't have near the middle class we did? The trend in this country has been to increase regulations since the moment of our inception. Would you agree that the middle class has been dwindling during that same time period? Why? Or you could take a look at the wealth of the world prior to the United States being independent. Since the exact date of 1789 the wealth of the world has been a near straight line upwards whereas it was pretty flat for almost all of history. What would be the cause of that?
Simple questions that lead to the answer that regulations destroy the middle class. Did you check out US Steel and their lobbyists? Or how about your own banking example? You seem to want a middle class, but every single idea you come up with will destroy it. Why do major companies push for regulations? Why do small businesses not want regulations?
forcing changes in society through regulation
That about sums up your argument. You believe that you have a better way of living than I so you will FORCE your way of living down my throat. You want me to eat healthier? Well here is a tax if you don't. You want me to run 5 miles a week? Well here is a fine on your health insurance costs if you don't. You want businesses to turn no profit? Well here we will take those pesky profits from you and expect you to work for nothing. It goes back to using the government as the central pillar to build your economy around.
What ever happened to freedom in this world? Colonists came to America for freedom and now there is no place on this earth to go. It really saddens me to see that this is the last place on earth that really is free(politically and economically) and we are turning into the rest of the world. If I went exploring and found an oil well, I couldn't even do anything with it in this day and age. Heck even if I found a gold mine I would have a heck of a time getting through the regulations to actually set up a business to mine it. If I created a new kind of steel, how long would it take before it got through regulations to production? And if I actually get any of those things done I end up giving half my money away just to be in business? Now why would I want to start a business if I have to make double the profits of a business in China just to stay even with them? I'll just go to Hong Kong and hope for the best.
