This analysis revealed a lot of surprising conclusions, including the following:
Today's government spending levels are indeed too high, at least relative to the average level of tax revenue the government has generated over the past 60 years. Unless Americans are willing to radically increase the amount of taxes they pay relative to GDP, government spending must be cut.
Today's income tax rates are strikingly low relative to the rates of the past century, especially for rich people. For most of the century, including some boom times, top-bracket income tax rates were much higher than they are today.
Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.
Super-low tax rates on rich people also appear to be correlated with unsustainable sugar highs in the economy--brief, enjoyable booms followed by protracted busts. They also appear to be correlated with very high inequality. (For example, see the 1920s and now).
Periods of very low tax rates have been followed by periods with very high tax rates, and vice versa. So history suggests that tax rates will soon start going up.
THE HISTORY OF TAXES: Here's How High Today's Rates Really Are
In short it does appear that both sides of the issue seem to be somewhat right when you look at it from a historical view. One side advocates that simply cutting taxes, and then cutting the Govt. to the bone will solve our problem, the only problem there is it does not address the already existing money we owe and the interest we are paying on it going forward not to mention the fact what it will do to those groups of American's our nation owes a debt to, yes, I said a debt. Think of it this way, Seniors for example are the very people who's shoulders we stand upon that helped build this nation, when you pass by someone who is elderly , that person may have worked in a factory that built the Apollo Moon rocket, or designed the first computer, or even fought on D-Day. You do not know, and the Social Security they paid into that our Govt. has been borrowing from and which is one of the largest debt holders of US debt, should take some priority over foreign debt. Vets, well that goes without saying.
As for the Democrat view, they seek to raise taxes on one group, to address the issue of revenue to the Federal Govt. with little effort to address the spending issue properly. In short if you do not address spending in area's that need it, and especially in such area's Defense, and healthcare, etc. then raising taxes will lead to even more debt regardless of how much revenue you collect.
The bottom line is that both of them are half right, so why then does it appear that its so hard for them to meet in the middle ? Perhaps because, many of those who represent us have forgotten that they are American first , rather than the party they represent first?
Today's government spending levels are indeed too high, at least relative to the average level of tax revenue the government has generated over the past 60 years. Unless Americans are willing to radically increase the amount of taxes they pay relative to GDP, government spending must be cut.
Today's income tax rates are strikingly low relative to the rates of the past century, especially for rich people. For most of the century, including some boom times, top-bracket income tax rates were much higher than they are today.
Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.
Super-low tax rates on rich people also appear to be correlated with unsustainable sugar highs in the economy--brief, enjoyable booms followed by protracted busts. They also appear to be correlated with very high inequality. (For example, see the 1920s and now).
Periods of very low tax rates have been followed by periods with very high tax rates, and vice versa. So history suggests that tax rates will soon start going up.
THE HISTORY OF TAXES: Here's How High Today's Rates Really Are
In short it does appear that both sides of the issue seem to be somewhat right when you look at it from a historical view. One side advocates that simply cutting taxes, and then cutting the Govt. to the bone will solve our problem, the only problem there is it does not address the already existing money we owe and the interest we are paying on it going forward not to mention the fact what it will do to those groups of American's our nation owes a debt to, yes, I said a debt. Think of it this way, Seniors for example are the very people who's shoulders we stand upon that helped build this nation, when you pass by someone who is elderly , that person may have worked in a factory that built the Apollo Moon rocket, or designed the first computer, or even fought on D-Day. You do not know, and the Social Security they paid into that our Govt. has been borrowing from and which is one of the largest debt holders of US debt, should take some priority over foreign debt. Vets, well that goes without saying.
As for the Democrat view, they seek to raise taxes on one group, to address the issue of revenue to the Federal Govt. with little effort to address the spending issue properly. In short if you do not address spending in area's that need it, and especially in such area's Defense, and healthcare, etc. then raising taxes will lead to even more debt regardless of how much revenue you collect.
The bottom line is that both of them are half right, so why then does it appear that its so hard for them to meet in the middle ? Perhaps because, many of those who represent us have forgotten that they are American first , rather than the party they represent first?
