First things first; no social experiment survives without an economy capable of supporting its costs while mining revenues from a diminishing field of productivity only hastens the expanding shortfall. The result of syphoning off whatever seeding potential might exist and this is established fact, both on fiscal/economic and human terms. And so, with respect to proposed tax plans, much of what politicians tease is ruthlessly unsound while the truth is far more relevant.
The public needs to be clear that most economists operate within the vacuum of academia safe from economic realities and where manipulation of data can be made to theoretically prove even the most irrational fantasies. For example, Hillary’s bucolic “Fair Share Surcharge” on 4% of plus $5 mil in income or any number of Bernie Sander’s tax schemes which sound soothing to the ear however, when in reality they’ll never generate sufficient revenue to cover the costs of programs they claim to fully fund.
Placing the burden, on individuals, for funding Government – particularly by means of a progressive tax format – is both counterproductive and retrograde in outcome for the simple reason that it is the individual who is the critical key driver of economic demand; without a liquid source of demand (the Public with measureable non-debt funded income/saving) you have no economy.
Government revenues should (only) be generated by/from economic activity, from the processes where wealth is created or services rendered and this should occur both from the Private Sector as well as the Government Sector. The U.S. Government alone passes on Trillions of Dollars per year in revenue generating opportunities; lost oil & gas lease revenues, timber & mineral rights, import duties, port fees, intellectual property rights/fees, asset disposition and fees for services it should be charging for just to name a few.
In the end, a majority of the problems this Nation faces is largely due to our unwillingness to toss proven failures in exchange for proving success. Holding on to the moniker of political duality as if to believe that if we willingly continue tolerating deprivation eventually the alternative will become unrecognizable and with it the burden of a more promising outcome.
Yes indeed, politicians fear a more promising future because they are unwilling to own the burden of actually having to own its demands and be willing to give up the control required to produce it. They much prefer grasping at flaws. When the consenting governed is unwilling to demand better, why then should government do anything more.
Curtis C. Greco, Founder
