The cost of the government has a strong effect on the lives of every citizen. It grows stronger with each passing day.
If the cost is reduced for the government to kick in strong forces, strong economic growth, full employment, higher government revenues, and often away from the tax rolls, while the lowest paid taxpayers.
President John F. Kennedy -1962:
... An economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never be enough revenueBalance our budget as it never enough jobs or enough profits ... In short, there is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise long-term yields will reduce their tariffs.
The Kennedy cuts that materialized under LBJ, saw the real economic growth jump of more than 40% and gave us the longest economic expansion in history up to that point.
If the cost of governmentincreases it is likely to kick negatives probably most governments around the world have grown beyond their most efficient point.
One possible exception is the small nation of Hong Kong, which virtually no natural resources, but tops most nations of the world where per capita income and living standards.
The cost for the government in Hong Kong is 20.7% of GDP. The U.S. government spending 35.7%, spending up to 21% by the federal government and 14% spent by the state breaksand local authorities.
Hong Kong has a flat tax with a top personal rate of 16%, compared to our top 35%. The top companies rate in Hong Kong 17.5%, compared to our top 35%.
Under China's communist rule until 1947, was Hong Kong has a per capita income of $ 180. From 1947 to 1997 under a British model of low taxes, low regulation and no fees paid to the Government began to rise, so for 2 types of tax cuts and scores from the tax rolls away. Until 1996, HongKong's GDP growth per capita, was within 7% of the U.S. --
In 1997, China came back into the picture, what some restriction of rising prosperity and quality of life of Hong Kong. Government spending has increased recently, but at 20.7%, the growth remains healthy.
Similarly, until recently, Ireland was known as the "sick man of Europe". A publication, said sarcastically that Ireland's largest export "their people".
As in a common economic --Committee report: "This situation was reversed during the period 1987-96. As a GDP share of public expenditure declined by 52.3-percent level of 1986 to 37.7 percent in 1996, representing a reduction of 14.6 percent points. "
Until 2004, the government was still further down to 34.3%, as measured by the 2006 Index of Economic Freedom.
Ireland cut corporate tax to the alluring figure of 12.5%. European companies an average of 30%.
The Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development (OECD) estimates that 4th in purchasing power parities (PPI) Ireland counts in the world.
Our U.S. Department of State lists of Ireland's 2003 per capita income of $ 38,308.
Are natural resources, the answer? Wise use of resources refers to the extent that a government can spend efficiently. Until recently. Countries like Iran and Russia have high public costs and poor utilization of resources. Iran is paying the price by increasing the cost of government andMisallocation of resources, while Russia improved to do is the opposite.
Why is government spending to a greater impact daily life?
You have seen what happened with reduced government costs.
Now listen to David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office (GAO), whose office audits and evaluates the performance of the Federal Government, and who has committed to touring the nation through the 2008 elections, talking to someone who wants to hear the ,dug through the fiscal black hole Washington has become. "
Mr. Walker stated: "If the U.S. government conducts the business as usual in the coming decades, reaching a national debt that may already $ 8.5 trillion $ 46 trillion or more, adjusted for inflation. That is almost as much as the total net worth of every person in America "- ...
After the safety, has a message to our elected officials deserve a higher priority than reducing the cost of government?
No comments:
Post a Comment