Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
Actually figured you were referring to the 90s since there had been much discussion of debt reduction.
50s 60s and 70s are very different times.
The 70s saw massive deficits, which got us into the mess that Chretien is credited with cleaning up.
50s were a boom for a lot of reasons. I agree that infrastructure needs more resources, but to suggest the 50s were a boom time because taxes were higher is quite the reach.
With a massive baby boom (that one you seem so find of), there was a tremendous need for schools and other infrastructure. There was also a generally positive view of the future and thus an appetite to spend and build.
Lots and lots of dynamics that could be discussed.
Attempting to correlate a time of higher taxes with a more robust economy though, is a stretch. I can just as easily list times when the economy sucked and taxes were higher than they are now.
I agree that more investment in infrastructure is needed. It doesn't follow that higher taxes are needed or are beneficial. It could also be achieved with more efficient spending.
A reduced debt load allows for more allocation to things like infrastructure. But one somewhat necessarily comes before the other.
|
Until someone shows me just where this 'more efficient spending' will achieve an extra 200 billion dollars in infrastructure budgeting, I'm going to have to assume it's a pink elephant.
What was happening in the country when corporate tax rates were double what they are now? Was that money just going into a savings account?
It was obviously being spent somewhere, and now that that money is no longer being taken in by the government, it's foolish to think it's still being spent on infrastructure. Where is it being spent? Nowhere, because it doesn't exist anymore.
Historically, there was more money coming in and more money coming out in the 50s and 60s than there is today. The result of that is there is less new infrastructure and the stuff that already exists is crumbling, literally.
A sunny disposition for the future isn't going to deposit hundreds of billions of dollars into the federal treasury.