The topic of federal spending/deficit rates and debt accumulation is too often discussed by political economists and not often enough by mathematicians, business owners, and investors i.e., risk takers.
Too often I read of the need for a “balanced” approach and “bipartisan cooperation” to decide on federal budgets. Such concepts are unrelated to the math that reveals the physical laws governing what is a sustainable budget. Having balance or compromise is of no interest to the numbers. If you spend or tax too much, you burden the nation. Increasing taxes some and decreasing spending a little is a political solution that does not take into account the math—the math is in final arbiter.
Taking more money from the economy to plug into federal tax coffers ensures that a percent of the take goes to debt servicing, some of which is outside the US. Furthermore, private dollars both motivate the individual to be productive and are quickly spent or invested where the individual decides the need and risk/reward tradeoff are most beneficial—gov’t cannot achieve this degree of efficient and effective allocation of resources.
The gov’t v the individual argument can be analyzed many ways but in economic terms, it decidedly favors keeping the money in the hands of the earning individual.
Whenever politicians and economists talking about policy changes, they usually trot out dying grandma's and sick children to tug general public’s heartstring. It has been tried and true. Every time.
And every time, the public decides the government can do a ‘better job’ than “ favors keeping the money in the hands of the earning individual”.