4 ms·
My preferred solution is this: 1. Every year, the US Government figures out how much money it wants to spend. 2. Then, it figures out what the (flat) tax rate
by hugh3 15y ago
My preferred solution is this:
1. Every year, the US Government figures out how much money it wants to spend.
2. Then, it figures out what the (flat) tax rate would need to be in order to rustle up that much money.
3. Then, it sets the tax rate and sends everyone a bill.
You could do this a year in advance just to make sure everybody knew how much they'd be getting taxed. But the important thing is that everybody in the country needs to see the immediate hip-pocket consequences when the government spends more money.
Still doesn't help with things like SS and Medicare, though, which cost a little bit of money in the year they're passed and vast sums of money several decades into the future.
- mkr-hn 15y agoThen a financial crisis hits and the government finds itself unable to react to the needs of a paralyzed market. It's a nice idea in principle. But any time something like this or a balanced budget law/rule comes up in congress, it never has a provision for reacting to emergencies.
- CamperBob 15y agoThe problem with that is, as we've seen (and are seeing), it's trivial to manufacture an 'emergency' or a 'crisis' on demand, whenever it's convenient.
- mkr-hn 15y agoA government that can react to real crises while being vulnerable to fake ones is the best option I've seen so far. People are very creative when it comes to working around problems. Some people see data processing efficiency as a problem to solve. Others see finding ways to manipulate government for profit as one.
- wtn 15y agoThis is a really stupid idea.
- rhizome 15y agoThat kind of tight-budgeting might work when introducing a 7-year old to the concept of an allowance, but national economics is slighly more involved. "Vast sums," LOL. Very telling you don't mention the drain on the economy by the military or by the financial industry itself.
- heelhook 15y agoYou have to give him credit for the less-is-more approach to this answer, you summed up centuries of macroeconomics and people who dedicated their lives to finding the most optimal solutions in a very easy to follow <ol>, well done!