Taxes: How Much Should Individuals Contribute to Government Spending?

  • News
  • Thread starter edpell
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Taxes
In summary, the conversation discusses the ideal percentage of gross national product that government should consume, with the suggestion of 30% total for federal, state, and other levels. The concept of Hauser's Law and the Laffer Curve are also mentioned, as well as the possibility of providing a European quality of life with reduced defense spending. It is noted that the U.S. government has relatively smaller spending compared to other developed countries, and the conversation touches on the idea of free education and healthcare.
  • #1
edpell
282
4
What percentage of gross national product do we feel government should consume? And conversely what percentage should be left in the control of individuals?

I would say that 10% for the federal level and 10% for the state level and 10% for all other levels would be reasonable. That is 30% total. I think we are now well about 50% total tax.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #4
Reminds me of the Laffer Curve. Both make sense. You squeeze hard enough and people vote with their feet (they leave).
 
  • #5
Total US government (fed and local) spending is currently about about 45% of GDP. As we know some of that is deficit spending, so the revenues are necessarily lower than 45%.

4.79_33.88_33.68_32.65_33.24_34.14_34.75_35.28_35.56_34.83_35.93_35.90_37.09_42.86_44.67&legend=.png
Looking at the federal spending alone, it apprears Hauser's revenue law may not be far off, at least since he coined it. Here's federal spending alone. Again I don't have revenue alone but if we subtract off the deficits now, add in the surpluses around 99, then it does indeed seem to be approximately true the revenues are around 20% no matter what.

9.91_19.22_19.04_18.50_18.35_18.11_19.34_19.39_19.32_19.56_19.82_19.38_20.65_24.71_25.44&legend=.png
 
Last edited:
  • #6
What percentage of gross national product do we feel government should consume?

As much as needed to provide the social safety net to all citizens, to maintain and improve infrastructure, to provide free universal education up to and including college, and to provide free healthcare to everyone.

Evident gaping holes in the U.S. coverage seem to indicate that the government does not spend enough. However, it's possible that we could end two wars and scale down defense spending, and that would be enough to provide European quality of life to all citizens, without additional spending.

edpell said:
Reminds me of the Laffer Curve. Both make sense. You squeeze hard enough and people vote with their feet (they leave).

People tend to underestimate how high taxes have to be before people start voting with their feet.

The U.S. has the second smallest government in the developed world, ahead of Canada. (And Canada does not have to finance two wars, maintain 150 F-22's, 11 aircraft carriers, and a few thousand ICBM silos.)
 
  • #7
hamster143 said:
... to provide free universal education up to and including college, and to provide free healthcare to everyone.
Nothing is free.
 

1. What is the GND and how does it relate to taxes?

The Green New Deal (GND) is a proposed set of policies aimed at addressing climate change and economic inequality. It includes plans for government investments in renewable energy, infrastructure, and social programs. Taxes play a crucial role in funding these initiatives.

2. How much will taxes increase under the GND?

The exact amount of tax increase under the GND is uncertain as it is still a proposed plan and has not been implemented. However, it is estimated that the GND could cost anywhere from $51 trillion to $93 trillion over the course of a decade, which would likely require significant tax increases.

3. Who will be affected by the tax increases under the GND?

The tax increases under the GND would likely affect high-income individuals and corporations the most, as they would be expected to contribute the most to fund the proposed initiatives. However, the GND also includes plans for tax breaks and benefits for low-income individuals and small businesses.

4. Will the GND result in a net increase or decrease in taxes?

This is a complex question that depends on various factors and assumptions. Some experts argue that the investments made through the GND could lead to economic growth and job creation, which could offset the tax increases. Others argue that the tax increases would outweigh any potential benefits.

5. How will the government ensure that the tax revenue is used for the intended purposes under the GND?

The specifics of tax allocation and spending under the GND have not been determined. However, the proposed plan includes measures for accountability, such as the creation of a Green New Deal Office to oversee and track the use of funds. Additionally, the government would be held accountable by the public and other branches of government to ensure the tax revenue is properly used for the intended purposes.

Similar threads

News Negative Income Tax: A Progressive & Simple Proposal w/ Benefits for All
    • General Discussion
Replies
7
Views
3K
News Is a Federal Sales Tax the Solution for a Fair Tax System?
    • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
News What Are Payroll Tax Supported Programs to You?
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
69
Views
8K
News Time to kill the Bush tax cuts
    • General Discussion
4
Replies
124
Views
15K
How do our brains process information differently depending on the task at hand?
    • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
852
Investment Solution to Altruism?
    • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
5K
News Nationalize Powerball/Mega millions?
    • General Discussion
Replies
20
Views
5K
News Should all religions in the US be tax-exempt?
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
66
Views
8K
News The FairTax in place of income tax
    • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
3K
News Conservative Definition of Govt role and rights
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
46
Views
7K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top