| To close the loop with celticninja: 1. For a given desired government outcome there exists some optimal taxation level. (This is a function, f(desired_outcome) = optimal_level, not a constant; I'm not assuming a particular desired outcome here.) 2. Unless you think the desired taxation level is 100%, it is possible to tax more than the optimal. 3. Even given optimal taxation it is still possible to obtain a suboptimal result. Given the sheer staggering size of US government intake, and particularly the growth of the intake in the past decade with very little apparent growth in government services to show for it (bear in mind the sharp growth began under Bush and predates the financial crisis), it is hardly irrational that some people might think that we are currently experiencing either or both of a tax intake greater than the optimal or results not commensurate with the taxes taken in by the government, in which either case the logical conclusion is to not simply blindly increase taxes, either taking us further from the optimal tax base or feeding an inefficient system yet more money to spend suboptimally. The per capita spend of the US government in 2013 is going to be ~$12,000 on a per capita debt of ~$55,000[1]. The per capita spend of, say, France, was on an income of 1.55 trillion Euro [2] and a population of 65.5 million, about 2300 Euro per capita, about $3000ish. It's not exactly unfair to wonder what we're getting for that much more money. [1]: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/US_per_capita_spending.h... [2]: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/france/government-spending , though you'll have to fiddle with it a bit [3]: https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&#... |