First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out....

1) Of course our government redistributes wealth. At least to the extent that it isn't covering its overspending by running up debt, rather than taxing one group to give to another. Government tax and spending policies combine to redistribute more than $2 trillion from the top 40 percent of families to the bottom 60 percent. http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/SR211.pdf I won't get into the moral hazard that creates and how much it has fucked up our country. Because I will just waste my time on here. But I will point it out as fact, since you don't seem to understand the reality of our country.

2) I will also point out that what you take for granted: "what people owe to the government," is anathema to the idea of individual rights. The government works for us, not the other way around. The mindset that you owe anything to the government -- as if you live your life for the government, not for yourself -- is what has taken down nearly every civilization throughout history. For obvious reasons.

3) Marginal tax rates tell nothing about anything, because our tax code has gotten more and more complicated. A top marginal tax rate of 90 percent, with provisions that allow you to deduct a large percentage of your income may collect less revenue than a marginal tax rate of 35 percent that doesn't have those provisions. The reality is that the effective tax rate (and effective tax rates are all that matter) in this country has stayed in a relatively narrow band for the last 50 years or so. Even as marginal tax rates fluctuate all over the place. That is for obvious reasons, too. As we continue to spend beyond our means, we have to try to grab as much tax revenue as possible from as many places. But you can only tax people so much before they revolt. And given those constraints, the level of taxation doesn't change that much. We grab as much as we can get away with. But people have a limit on how much EFFECTIVE tax they will put up with. It's why our debt levels just go up and up. We have reached the upper level of how much we can tax everything. But we spend more and more.

4) I'd love for you to explain how the percentage of income we pay in taxes "is near the lowest levels in a century." That not only is untrue, it's so ridiculously untrue that it makes me scratch my head. Go back to the 1910s (100 years ago). The Federal income tax was new (1913). Only the very wealthiest people in the country paid any income tax, and the effective rate was in the low single digits. In fact, it was how they sold the amendment to the constitution that got a Federal income tax, and how we created the mess we have today. They told people, "It will never effect you. We're only going to tax the top 1 percent, and even they won't have to pay a lot of tax. Just a little." All the same "fair share," rhetoric as today, and the same populist, "1 percent" rhetoric. There was no social security, medicare, Obamacare, etc. tax. No state income taxes. Sales taxes were extremely rare. Capital gains were taxed up to 7 percent, but only if you were one of the LESS than 1 percent of people who owed any income tax.

Not coincidentally, we ran Federal budgets that were quaint compared to the trillions we spend every year now. A billion dollars, if that, a year at the Federal level. And we were able to pay for everything, because we didn't have to tax the hell out of the world up the limit we could get away with, and run up massive amounts of never-ending debt (at least until we collapse the dollar, and on the course we are on, that will happen unless something changes).

For what it was worth, one reason why we could live within our means was that nobody was trying to redistribute wealth, the way you suggested we don't. We can discuss the reasons why you might want to try to take from some people and give to others (what we do, you need to get your head around that) but "redistribution" of wealth is a misnomer, anyhow. We only cover a portion of the money and benefits (at a cost) we give a large percentage (more than 40 percent of people net take more than they give) of the population. We tax the hell out of the richest people among us, and that money doesn't even fully cover the redistribution of wealth. We are piling up massive amounts of debt to cover the rest.

In any case, my question is, on what planet are we taxed less today than we were in say, 1915 (when less than 1 percent of people paid federal income tax, and paid in the single digits as a percentage of their income) or 1920 or even 1930 or 1940. That is pure nonsense.

 

Yes, and we can count on morons to use dismissive rhetoric suggesting that the Frankenstein overspending (and taxation and debt) in this country is necessary, because without it people will have to sleep in cardboard boxes and die of starvation.

If it gets you through your day portraying me as the guy who favors homelessness and starvation, then knock yourself out.

I can't really have a serious discussion with someone who uses that as their starting point.

But you have cornered the market on caring. ... so obviously you da man.

Thanks for all the misery that your caring has averted. Everything in the U.S. is peachy keen after decades and decades of your way.

 

And back to reality. We haven't created more than $17 trillion in just Federal debt (and climbing at a ridiculous pace), ALONG with the trillions of dollars of taxation a year. ... feeding the hungry.

But the strawman was pithier than my post.

 

I didn't make a dire economic prediction. Do you read my posts or just type what you want?

Back to your ACTUAL post.

Please make the case again that without $2 trillion being redistributed from half the population to the other half on net, PLUS a deficit (i.e. spending beyond our means) that has fluctuated for the past 5 years between $700 billion and $1.4 trillion a year, that 40 percent of the population would be hungry.