What you heard is not much of an argument. The fact is, the left opposed the bill that cut taxes and were not calling for any tax cuts. That was the right
I am talking about right now. Very few on the left want to reverse all of Bush tax cuts, which will be needed to bring finances in order.
Thats just not true. Both spending and revenue are altered through the same legislative process. The only thing that makes one harder than the other is the ideological obstinancy of rightwingers. And of course revenue has increased. We have more people, therefore, more people working.
The numbers I showed you were revenue as a percentage of GDP. That is not affected by more people, or more efficient economy. Revenue has increased. My point is, if there are no political will for change, then revenue tends to be stable.
Spending however, can go out of control. People don't want spending to increase, but it increases anyway. There is a difference.
As the population increases, there is a need to increase spending just as there is an (near) inevitablity of increased revenue.
All my numbers are as a percentage of GDP, hence population increase, and efficiency are irrelevant. Spending has increased as a perdentage of GDP, but few are willing to pay higher taxes. Bringing the burden to the rich will not work.
And once again, you are making dishonest claims about the left. What the right wants is for the rich to pay an ever decreasing portion of the bill, even as the reap an ever increasing portion of the benefits
Some people on the right may want that. I am on the right, and I do not want that. I want income inequality to decrease in the US, because as a start it is hurtful to the conservative agenda, and it is not fair.
As you can see in the charts, the wealthy have benefitted while the rest have not, even while the wealthy pay a smaller portion of the burden
Actually,this is wrong. Your numbers stop at 2007, there was a massive decrease relative to the rest for the top 1% in 2008-2009, so it goes down to 15%.
Also, the wealthy pay a much larger portion of the burden.
I've seen no evidence of this. Many immigrants tend to financially "conservative" and frugal and oppose increased spending
There are heaps of evidence of this. You can take a look at how Mexicans vote, and if they are voting Republican, they are mainly voting due to their values, and not their economic view. Also, remember Mexicans are more right wing than the rest of South America.
If you take a look at other countries. In Norway, my homeland. The immigrants (mostly asylum seekers) vote overwhelmingly to the left. Same with other countries in Europe. But they come from countries that have barely no welfare state. They didn't choose to have low government spending, they can't afford having high government spending.
The wealthy in third world nations are not mobile. There's a reason why the live where they do.
The reason they live there, is because their family is there and being rich in the third world is quite nice. You can have servants, nice house and if you moved to a rich country, then you wouldn't have those luxuries. They can easily move to neighboring countries.
And if this isn't enough for you. Why are there none white people in Zimbabwe, if they are not mobile. Rich people in poor countries are mobile, hence you can't tax them that much.
Correlation doesn't equal causation, remember?
Pointless statement, because I didn't talk about a correlation like you did. I just pointed out that some of the worst countries in the world have high governmental spending. I used to illustrate my point that if a poor country tries hard to have high governmental spending, it will probably not be a very nice country. Poor countries can't afford having high governmental spending.
LOL!! Those govts are not "small govts". For example, in Singapore, most people live in public housing or own homes they bought with govt subsidies. Their govts are invovled in their lives to a degree that would horrify "small govt" blowhards in the US
Yes they are. Singapore don't even have a minimum wage, while Taiwan and Hong Kong have a minimum wage of 3 and 4 USD respectively.
All of them have a governmental spending of 15%. America has a spending of 40%. And taxes are much lower as well. The labour laws are very lax in Singapore and Hong Kong. The reason Singapore haves public housing (sounds worse than it is) is because they have to. Well, you can do like Hong Kong, and Taiwan, but then you end up with expensive bad housing. And some cities in America has rent control, that is way worse. It is burdensome, and decreases housing investment instead of increasing housing investment. So housing prices go up in the long term.
Another point is that Hong Kong and Singapore, are ranked as 1 and 2 respectively in both Heritage and Fraser economic freedom ranking. US is ranked 9 in Heritage and 10 in Fraser. Taiwan is further down, because they love regulations, but not governmental spending.
Pretty much. You are wrong that high governmental spending is required to be a developed nation. The reason developing nations are lower, is because they can't afford higher taxes.