I would like to try to put an end to the tax-more-or-spend-less question by proposing a drastic, yet simplistic, theoretical experiment.
Split the country in half.
One half, the "Republic," would have no social programs, no welfare, no income tax, and only enough other taxes to pay for a national defense and a small government to uphold the constitution. The states would provide all other services as their needs require. People choosing to live on this side would have the understanding that there would be no government handouts and no safety nets.
The other half, the "Democracy," would have all the social programs and welfare the people could ask for. The people on this side would have the understanding the government provides for them from cradle to grave. They would be free to succeed, but the more they succeeded the more they would be taxed to provide for the general welfare of the others.
What do you think the end result would be for each side? Do you think all of the rich liberals like Matt Damon could afford to support the rest of the people in the Democracy? Do you think there would be people dying on the streets of the Republic because there would be no federal welfare system?
ADVERTISEMENT
I think the Democracy would go bankrupt, similar to the way the U.S. is headed now, and the Republic would be the world's leading economy with the highest standards of living and the least amount of unemployment. I would even go so far as to say the nonprofit charities of the Republic would be able to provide better social welfare services to the people of the Democracy than their government could.
Ask yourself: Which side would you live on?
Mike Grew
Duluth
