To bryant and miles

I would say to the lefties of the geoup, but thats pretty much just you two. So. My question is, can you ever have a sustainable government, as long as annual automatic spending increases are in place?

Yes, but only so long as spending increases are matched by revenue increases (easy to achieve with either a growing tax base and/or increasing GNP).

Can I answer??? Technically a Libertarian is a leftist, so I am a leftist.

That is a loaded question.

Spending will always increase due to outside forces such as inflation and population growth. It doesn't really matter what programs are in place and what programs aren't. Spending really isn't the problem anyway. It is growth of government and what the governed thinks government can/should do.

Now for the real question:

Should I be forced to pay into programs that I do not agree with???

Careful now, this is a loaded question. One needs to study both the Constitution and Black's Law to answer properly.

Merriam Webster's definition of a lefty or leftist.

1: the principles and views of the left; also: the movement embodying these principles .

2: advocacy of or adherence to the doctrines of the left .

(Related to LEFTISM)

Synonyms: left, liberalism, left wing

Antonyms: conservatism, right

Related Words: neoliberalism; radicalism, socialism

Marconius wrote:Now for the real question:

Should I be forced to pay into programs that I do not agree with???

Careful now, this is a loaded question. One needs to study both the Constitution and Black's Law to answer properly.

While I'm certain I'm blundering into a trap, I'll take the bait.

I fail to see how a government could ever remain financially solvent if people pick and choose how much to pay in taxes. We tend to think too provincially and egocentrically.

Even though, in tUSA, it is the people that is seen as sovereign and can only be governed if they consent to that government???

But governments are the chief drivers of inflation. And just because the population may increase by X amount, doesnt mean the demand for every single service provided by government will also increase by That same amount. And to bryants point; so then government revenues will necessarily need to continue to rise indefinitely, and you dont see a problem with that? You cant see where overtaxation and regulation can reach a point where it puts the brakes on the economy? To me, unless the wealth of the overall public has increased by X amount, then the overall revenues of the government shouldnt either, because government and its cost to operate has to be kept at a certain ratio, or it inevitably becomes tot expensive to be supported

Pun wrote:But governments are the chief drivers of inflation. And just because the population may increase by X amount, doesnt mean the demand for every single service provided by government will also increase by That same amount. And to bryants point; so then government revenues will necessarily need to continue to rise indefinitely, and you dont see a problem with that? You cant see where overtaxation and regulation can reach a point where it puts the brakes on the economy? To me, unless the wealth of the overall public has increased by X amount, then the overall revenues of the government shouldnt either, because government and its cost to operate has to be kept at a certain ratio, or it inevitably becomes tot expensive to be supported

In my initial post I argued that revenue increase would naturally result in population growth (larger tax base) or GNP growth (more people in higher tax brackets). Both of these assume no change in taxation rates. In other words, revenue increase would be dynamically proportional to both changes in population and changes in economic health. This model does not require perpetual taxation increases (although increases or decreases in rates would be tied to circumstance).

A revenue increase for the government results in pop growth? That cant be what you mean. I think there are alot of assumptions in this model.

I feel like your combining private sector (or real) economic growth, with government revenues. An increase in government revenues doesnt mean an increase in prosperity.

I personally think we need a tax amendment added to the constitution, recognizing our rights when it comes to the issue, because as is, we have none. Its basically pay what the government decides you have to, and thats it.

Dunno, this is all to simple really. To have that discussion would be very long and drawn out. Something I am pretty sure none of us really have time for.

I get Pun's point and I get Bryant's point, but unless we have time to discuss all factors of economics, we really can't do this one. It took me several semesters just to get through the basics that I know now.

Pun wrote:I personally think we need a tax amendment added to the constitution, recognizing our rights when it comes to the issue, because as is, we have none. Its basically pay what the government decides you have to, and thats it.

I hesitate to get involved in this thread because, despite the rumors you've heard, I dont consider myself a lefty. But yeah, I agree with ya in theory. As long as the Constitution lets government levy taxes though, we dont have much choice. And if we're going to 'pick and choose' what we are willing to pay for, the nation really would go broke I fear.

The best option I think is for voters to be aware of how our money is spent, aggressively petition our congressmen and vote em out of office if we find them wasting our tax money. Unfortunately, 95% of he nation's voters are apathetic and , or otherwise ignorant of the issues.

THATS...why there are problems in washington. Its our fault that we keep voting these tax hogs into office.