Definitely, no. After Laffer, in normal open market, all government spending (equal to sum of all taxes), should be less than 30% (less then optimum, so will have gap for emergency cases).
Why it is more effective to limit taxes, because by definition, private business is most effective form of production, and gov't entities are least effective form, and with tiny taxes people will have more money to reinvest into economy grow (via investments into existing and new private businesses), which is definitely more effective than spend money by government or just use government to redistribute money to people.
So in ideal case, fed gov should be zero size, and only in extreme cases appear and save world, then immediately disappear and return zero taxes.
PS what's also funny, usually money redistribution bureaucracy spend more money to their functioning than distribute to people, even in cases of very large systems with millions participants.
PPS yes, exist number of cases, where concentrated spending via government is beneficial, because of size factor. But problem is, many of such cases are only seen post factum, and it is not easy to predict, if something is such big thing.
Examples of cases benefit from fed size, are: railway from west to east on early 20th century; nuclear power ~80 years ago; space scale rockets in 1960s.
- Now all these cases will be more effective handled at private business.
For now we have perspective cases of AI and quantum computers, but at the moment we don't know, which approaches will deliver value and which will just gather low hanging fruits.
PPPS must admit, army/navy (including veterans care) and weapons industry are special cases, which need concentrated money to effectively function, and unfortunately they typically cannot be optimized, because already working underfunded.
Why need finance own army - to not finance enemy army.
In ideal case, own army must be only tiny bit more powerful than enemy army, and this will be enough to save from war.
> After Laffer, in normal open market, all government spending (equal to sum of all taxes), should be less than 30% (less then optimum, so will have gap for emergency cases).
Please explain, what exactly you don't understand from my comment?
- I have included source where you could find additional info, but sure I have not included huge number of other sources, because they are well known for people really interested in economy, and sure I will add some others if somebody ask.
The Wikipedia article you linked to doesn't support the assertion that Government spending should be less that 30%
And in-facts disputes the claim that lowering US tax rates would actually increase the tax take
We actually have the evidence to back this up as the deficit grew when Trump cut rates
> Why it is more effective to limit taxes, because by definition, private business is most effective form of production, and gov't entities are least effective form
This is also an unproven assertion as there are plenty of examples effective public spending and ineffective private production
> effective public spending
> ineffective private production
You really thinking, if private company will be ineffective on concurrent market it will survive significant long time?
And you also thinking, exist some superhero, who always stopping ineffective public spending?
I think, you just manipulate, showing rare cases as typical practice.
And yes, I agree, could be exceptions, but I said about typical cases, because we cannot lean country on rare things. Country should have concrete reliable foundations.
Why it is more effective to limit taxes, because by definition, private business is most effective form of production, and gov't entities are least effective form, and with tiny taxes people will have more money to reinvest into economy grow (via investments into existing and new private businesses), which is definitely more effective than spend money by government or just use government to redistribute money to people.
So in ideal case, fed gov should be zero size, and only in extreme cases appear and save world, then immediately disappear and return zero taxes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
PS what's also funny, usually money redistribution bureaucracy spend more money to their functioning than distribute to people, even in cases of very large systems with millions participants.
PPS yes, exist number of cases, where concentrated spending via government is beneficial, because of size factor. But problem is, many of such cases are only seen post factum, and it is not easy to predict, if something is such big thing.
Examples of cases benefit from fed size, are: railway from west to east on early 20th century; nuclear power ~80 years ago; space scale rockets in 1960s. - Now all these cases will be more effective handled at private business.
For now we have perspective cases of AI and quantum computers, but at the moment we don't know, which approaches will deliver value and which will just gather low hanging fruits.