| osamanobama said: th thing is, the money was never the government's to begin with, and some reason politician feel they are entitled to my money. also government never gets the amount of revenue from tax increases as the expected, never. the sooner they learn this the better. increasing tax changes people behavior, the way they shift their money, who they hire. etc |
Wrong. The money DID start with a quasi-government run organization, with input via the U.S Treasury, called the Federal Reserve. All currency, according to the U.S Constitution, is supposed to come from the government. And that is how it works. The government lends the money out to banks and then the banks lend it out.
What you bring up is different issue. It is important to ask if the government is supposed to be able to have any impact at all on society, to prevent problems from happening and affecting what is seen at needed changes, and being the protector of last resort, to protect people from the unexpected and wide scale changes that would otherwise permanently harm them, if not kill them. The role of government is to be debate and discussed, like is economic conditions supposed to be managed by a central bank, to try to prevent depressions and inflationary spikes, and so on. Should there be regulation? Should the government step in and prevent people from dying or going homeless due to no fault of their own? All these need to be answered. Once answered, then you decide how it would be paid for, and the fairest way, and the tax rates are set. To say this isn't needed is to might as well argue that a nation shouldn't have a standing military either.
And yes, there are unintended side effects to every decision. Like people saying tax breaks to enable people to buy a yacht shouldn't be removed, because it will cause people to be become unemployed.
