I agree. Economic growth allows government to spend more to help people. But there is a problem. High spending requires high taxes. High taxes reduces economic growth. You can see what happened when Trump and his Republicans cut taxes. The economy boomed leading to improved statistics around the board which Trump bragged about in the SOTU.neverfail wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:27 pmNot incompatable.
Logically, economic growth permits greater government spending.
Economic growth is only a key. A key is there to open doors.
GDP growth rate, on average, grew faster in the last three years than in the oBUMa years. Unemployment fell. That includes for the minorities that Democrats claimed to champion. The best part is that the wages for the bottom income group grew faster than for the top.
So if you retard growth with a too large welfare state, then in the long run, the poor will be worse off. In general, Capitalism grows average wealth faster than Socialism. But there is more inequality. Socialism seeks to reduce inequality by income transfer by taxing and spending. High taxes cause slower growth, higher unemployment and poverty.
I propose a balance. Government spending should not be more than 20% of GDP. In the US, Federal Spending, as I shown earlier, is 25% of GDP. But that does not include State and Local government spending. If you add it all up, it comes to 40% of GDP for the US. I believe that if government spending and hence tax revenue are kept at 20% of GDP, economic growth will not be retarded. So the poor will benefit more in the long run.
That needs to go down by half.
I don't know whether the socio-economic political structure in Britain during Charles Dicken's time was sinful or not. But I consider the current economic political structure of today to be sinful..........................................................................................................................
But that is beside the point Cassowary. Had the present Pope been alive and on the Throne of Saint Peter in Charles Dickens' time he would probably have identified the exploitative socio-economic-political structure they had in place in Britain at the time as sinful.
Just as (in more recent memory) his predecessor in office, Pope John Paul the Second, identified environmental abuse in our time as sinful (or are you unaware of that?).
In that regard Pope Francis is arguably only walking in the footsteps of his illustrious predecessor.
That's because it is basically based on theft. Suppose there are 1000 people in a small town. 333 are the richer residents and the balance 667 are the poor. If the 667 using their sheer numbers gang up and rob the 333 with guns, then I am sure you agree that is wrong.
But what if the 667 elect a mayor who promised to tax the 333 and transfer the money to the 667? It may be democracy. But it is also theft. Currently, Socialist politicians like Bernie Sanders are promising taxes to pay for all sorts of free stuff. Isn't that robbery as well?
If you don't pay taxes, the police who have guns will arrest you. So it is no different than if the 667 people use their own guns to rob the 333 in the small town. People are just using their vote to rob others. I think the welfare states in most western countries have grown too big. Their governments need to slim down.