Cutting Taxes Vs Gov’t -directed Spending

The “cutting taxes” argument strikes me as an unusually broad field of battle. I have found it useful to restrict the argument to the following:

^[2]The Amount of government -directed spending we have seen recently has far outstripped the amount of money it would cost if we were to merely stop taking income taxes. Question; would not be simpler, cheaper, and more effective to allow wage earners to decide where they spend the money, rather than government doing it?

The only problem with this, of course, is that doing it that way removes the decision from the government, and does not do a great deal for those who don’t pay income taxes in the first place; the bottom 40% or so of wage earners… who interestingly are one of the the Democrat party’s primary source of votes.

If, as stated, the object is to kick start the economy, what better way than a massive take home pay increase for American workers?

Let’s consider, also, what that pay increase would do to the ability of homeowners struggling to pay mortgages.

Of course, those in power in the white house and in Congress will never go for it; it reduces government.

I should specify that not taking taxes would have a sunset… say in a year or so.

The one problem I didn’t mention, will that they are, is that it would also demonstrate once and for all out tax rates damage an economy.  We all understand at an instinctive level that under such conditions are economy would go through the roof.  We also understand that the argument would be over once and for all about the effective tax policy on the economy.

Most likely, that’s why the Democrat party will never go for it.