Skip to main content

What does increased government spending lead too?

Increasing government spending will require an increase in taxes. Anyone who has even the simplest understanding of math will grasp that concept. So with the Democrats’ intent to increase spending where do they plan to get the money? Obama says they will get all of this money by increasing the taxes on those who make more then $250,000 per year and by eliminating business loop-holes to hide money from the tax-collectors. This way Obama is keeping his promise to the Middle-Class by taking from the rich and giving to the middle.

This situation as I explained it seems to be a great plan, so I decided to look into it further to see what history has shown us happens in situations like this and how it could pop-up in the future.

First I wanted to look at what increasing the amount of taxes that are taken from those who are making a salary of over $250,000/year would do. These households that make more then $250k per year are less then 1.5% of the population. In the past when similar methods have been used this led to creative investing that allowed individuals to pay a minimum of taxes and encouraged investing outside of the USA as a way to hide money. This is becoming increasingly easier as most large corporations become international and portions of salaries can be paid to small corporations started in countries that do not have income tax laws. This decreases the amount of taxes that one can be charged at that higher rate and allows them to be charged at the lower percentage rate that is used for funds, corporations, and trusts.

Now a way to get that money back is by closing the tax loop-holes that businesses use to hide their money. Of course this has the immediate effect of decreasing the amount of foreign investment in US companies. It also has the added effect of forcing companies to export more jobs overseas where countries that have business friendly laws will allow these major corporations to exploit the local labor force and produce cheaper products. If these companies do not export their factories overseas then they will often resort to using illegal labor that will work for significantly cheaper rates, until the factory unionizes and then forces the manufacturing site overseas.

The next step in this process is to increase the tariffs on goods coming into the USA or penalizing US companies for exporting jobs. This in turn allows foreign nations to decrease their dependency on the US and allows them to expand their markets to other nations.

After all of these affects take place the only way for a US company to succeed is to live off of government bail-outs. This will increase the total spending of the US government and create a larger need for taxation thereby forcing the country deeper and deeper into the same problem.

If we continue along a path that punishes those who get the education and training to make a lot of money and those who take the risk to start their own businesses … then soon nobody will do that in the USA. When that happens who will pay all of the money to give to everyone else?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Al Qaeda and the Ashayish?

Recently I had the privilege to read an article by Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis that compared the Kurdish Ashayish to al Qaeda. To me this was a very interesting article because I have always viewed them as diametrically opposed institutions. If you do not know what the Ashayish or al Qaeda is then let me start with that. According to their own website Al-Qaeda's objectives include the end of foreign influence in Muslim countries and the creation of a new Islamic caliphate. The name Al-Qaeda quite literally means camp and was created in Afghanistan when the Sunni Muslims were creating training bases for the mujahedeen (holy warriors) to fight against the Russians. These camps were created by the House of Saud and were funded in part by the US State Department (these actions were recently made into a movie called “Charlie Wilson’s War”). The Ashayish are the security forces of the officially recognized Kurdish Regional Government of Iraq. The Ashayish were created as th

Definition of Terrorism

Terrorism and Extortion are very similar in action but where they differ the most is with intended results. Extortion : Using violence or the threat of violence to create an environment where actions toward the victim lead to the victim giving the perpetrator(s) something of value . Terrorism : Using violence of the threat of violence to create an environment where actions towards the victim lead to society giving the perpetrator(s) something of value . When defining terrorism it is pertinent to first set what parameters the definition is adhered to. If we took a general definition of terrorism and said that it is simply the act of generating fear to elicit the desired response of the issuer then we can say all governments engage in terrorism to control the activities of their populace. Threat of going to jail unless you meet social norms would fit into this definition of terrorism. The same could be said about having a strong military imposing the will of a country upon another co

Peripheral Visionary

It is never a good idea to type when you are angry. If anyone has read my blog before you will see that many things have been cut out of it lately. There were too many toes being stepped on and to many things being referred too. My emails were long and disjointed and easily taken out of context. So to ensure this does not happen again I will dissect everything I write before I put it on this site. If you are offended by what you read please let me know and I will take that off as well. I do not want to offend anyone. So from now on I will not use names to describe anyone. Everyone I talk about will be given pseudonyms. This will anger some of you because you want to know the names, places, dates – but you will have to settle for the taste, smell, and feel. If you want their real names you will just have to wait for the book.