I'd imagine adding a 5% Sales tax, and merely reversing the Bush Era tax-cuts for incomes above 250k would save a lot of money. I don't like Micheal Moore, but I do believe that those with the ability to pay, should pay more tax.
That.... and you've got to remember where a lot of these corporate profits are coming from. They come from people right at the bottom getting a wage, then going out and buying stuff. Earn some money, buy a car.... how many people earn a living off that car? That generates profits, which creates jobs, which creates more people buying stuff.... which creates more jobs. Which creates more taxable income. The more money you put in their hands, the better off the economy is, would anyone agree?
The more secure the people at the bottom are, the better it is for everyone. Skim a little off the top to shore up the foundation. Compared to how many billions there are up top, it doesn't take much to stabilise the people down below. When they're stable, they start consuming, generating activity which feeds back and generates more activity.... and so on. And when you've got the people enough money so that they start consuming, you can tax their consumption. (Just, don't overdo it and start relying on one specific kind of consumption, say property....because when that goes away, you suddenly find yourself with a nasty hole...).
This is why I think cutting the size of the federal government may be self defeating. Cutting cruft helps.... all governments have the useless quangos to meet J. Random Politicians demands for a thumbs up, but cutting necessary services only serves to decrease overall wellbeing. Aswell, the thing with government employees... even if you fire them, you've still got to pay them social welfare and the like along with other benefits.... only you've lost all the economic activity their government salary would generate.
Of course, I come at this from a completely different viewpoint.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
That.... and you've got to remember where a lot of these corporate profits are coming from. They come from people right at the bottom getting a wage, then going out and buying stuff. Earn some money, buy a car.... how many people earn a living off that car? That generates profits, which creates jobs, which creates more people buying stuff.... which creates more jobs. Which creates more taxable income. The more money you put in their hands, the better off the economy is, would anyone agree?
The more secure the people at the bottom are, the better it is for everyone. Skim a little off the top to shore up the foundation. Compared to how many billions there are up top, it doesn't take much to stabilise the people down below. When they're stable, they start consuming, generating activity which feeds back and generates more activity.... and so on. And when you've got the people enough money so that they start consuming, you can tax their consumption. (Just, don't overdo it and start relying on one specific kind of consumption, say property....because when that goes away, you suddenly find yourself with a nasty hole...).
This is why I think cutting the size of the federal government may be self defeating. Cutting cruft helps.... all governments have the useless quangos to meet J. Random Politicians demands for a thumbs up, but cutting necessary services only serves to decrease overall wellbeing. Aswell, the thing with government employees... even if you fire them, you've still got to pay them social welfare and the like along with other benefits.... only you've lost all the economic activity their government salary would generate.
Of course, I come at this from a completely different viewpoint.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?