Wanna balance the budget? Cut spending
Research from scholars at The American Enterprise Institute :
"The data also clearly indicate that successful attempts to balance budgets rely almost entirely on reduced government expenditures, while unsuccessful ones rely heavily on tax increases. On average, the typical unsuccessful consolidation consisted of 53% tax increases and 47% spending cuts."
More:
"Consistent with other studies, we found that successful consolidations focused on reducing social transfers, which in the American context means entitlements, and also on cuts to the size and pay of the government work force. A 1996 International Monetary Fund study concluded that 'fiscal consolidation that concentrates on the expenditure side, and especially on transfers and government wages, is more likely to succeed in reducing the public debt ratio than tax-based consolidation.' For example, in the U.K's 1997 consolidation, cuts to transfers made up 32% of expenditure cuts, and cuts to government wages made up 21%."
Thanks, David.
"The data also clearly indicate that successful attempts to balance budgets rely almost entirely on reduced government expenditures, while unsuccessful ones rely heavily on tax increases. On average, the typical unsuccessful consolidation consisted of 53% tax increases and 47% spending cuts."
More:
"Consistent with other studies, we found that successful consolidations focused on reducing social transfers, which in the American context means entitlements, and also on cuts to the size and pay of the government work force. A 1996 International Monetary Fund study concluded that 'fiscal consolidation that concentrates on the expenditure side, and especially on transfers and government wages, is more likely to succeed in reducing the public debt ratio than tax-based consolidation.' For example, in the U.K's 1997 consolidation, cuts to transfers made up 32% of expenditure cuts, and cuts to government wages made up 21%."
Thanks, David.
Also, a long-term study that's been reported in WSJ op-eds over the years shows that in the U.S., every dollar of additional federal revenue is accompanied by more that a dollar of additional federal spending.
In his weekly column in the Washington Times, Richard Rahn has repeatedly shown that corporate income tax and capital-gains taxes are destructive, and that throughout the world when total government spending (including state and local spending) goes beyond a certain percentage of a nation's economy (25%?) the nation's economy is invariably weakened, and thus tax revenue is reduced.
The left don't care, because "equality" is more important to them than anyone's prosperity.
Reply to this