We have two choices when it comes to bringing the revenue and expenditures in the budget closer together: reduce spending and increase revenue. Practically speaking, the discretionary spending portion of the budget is so small that, as long as we're not willing to discuss defense spending in a meaningful way (and we are demonstrably unwilling), there's simply no practical way to close the budgetary gap by reducing spending alone. Further, my view is that many of the kinds of services which would be stripped away in service of that goal are essential functions of government--things like "establish Justice" and "promote the general Welfare."
Historically, we have taxed at far higher rates in order to close the gap with a marginal tax rate as high as 92% at one time. Those tax rates did not squelch initiative or damage the economy; to the contrary, those years saw a robust economy, booming growth, and more shared prosperity than we see today. Economic inequality--the gap between the richest and the middle class, much less the poorest--is worse now and growing; and what suffocates an economy is too few people with money in their pockets. Taxing the wealthy for the benefit of all turns out to benefit all, including the wealthy who benefit by living in a more stable society with lower crime rates, higher education rates, better staffed schools and hospitals and businesses, and fewer desperate people.
Be the first to reply to this agreement.