Hong Kong had relatively low income and capital gains taxes (under 20%), and raised 1/3 of government revenue from land tax (basically like a property tax but only on the underlying land value). Went from 3rd world to one of the richest places on the planet in about 40 years, despite no natural resources. Singapore had a similar thing. No one would argue that Singapore and Hong Kong under the Brits were unsafe places, lawless, or insecure - in fact the crime rates were lower than in the west. Therefore it has been empirically proven beyond all reasonable doubt that you can have law-abiding, peaceful, rich countries sustained by a tax rate of below 20%. W Europe and USA, with much greater advantages in natural resources and defense, should be able to levy even lower taxes, maybe 10-15%. And that assumes Hong Kong/Singapore had the ideal tax rate & spending rate. Arguably they would have become even richer had government spending and tax been even lower.
There is no country B - we will talk again when country B becomes successful. US is the world's greatest country - atleast 20 years ago - and it was and is still A. What you are proposing in B is nothing but an experiment - just like communism was 100 years ago. We cannot experiment our future like that and say, oops it didnt work out.
That quote is questionable for the following reason: after you push too far in one direction, in a self-restraining system such as free market prices, or democracy (assuming it stays democratic), the system pushes back. Once debt, public spending, and fiscal discipline get too extreme, even the dumb public will realize it's a disaster. Candidates urging fiscal restraint will stand for office and get elected. The trend will be reversed and then you will have a move back to smaller government. The only argument is how far that move will be, what the equilibrium range is, and is there an underlying trend to bigger and bigger over the very long-term. The only real way to make that process severe enough to collapse civilisation is if a country goes from democracy to dictatorship in a moment of crisis (e.g. 1930s Germany), rather than maintaining the democratic process. The advent of technology and weapons means it will become harder and harder for dictators to seize and keep power at the crisis point. In the US in particular, widespread firearms ownership plus the culture of the people means that no dictator would ever live long enough to do much permanent damage. Americans have assassinated numerous presidents even during democracy and peacetime, they will have no qualms doing it if a dictator gets power. Hell, there is probably a 20-30% chance someone will off Obama if he goes down the big government path, or if some Stormfront nutter gets lucky. That's the real reason for the 2nd amendment, and why American is one of the only countries that could never become a dictatorship (as long as it's not repealed).
Examples of something close to country B: 19th century USA (albeit with slavery, genocide, and civil war problems) 19th century UK (albeit with an expensive oppressive imperial machine attached) post WWII Hong Kong/Singapore (albeit with rather restrictive social laws) Does anyone doubt that if the tax take/government spend as a % of GDP went to 15% in the USA or W Europe, there would be a huge increase in prosperity and the standard of living? If someone had to start a country from scratch like the US in the 18th century, the first thing they should do after the right to bear arms and term limits is a mandatory maximum government spend of 15% of GDP outside wartime. Bingo - all your pork and creeping socialism solved for good, forever.
Switzerland....Individual rates ....0-13% And US has far more natural resources.... Also has the best quality of life....most livable cities in the world.... And most economically stable.... Zurich #1 http://images.businessweek.com/ss/08/06/0611_mercer/index_01.htm?chan=rss_topSlideShows_ssi_5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world
China...is 25% corp....5-45% individual.... All the US has to do is adopt country B....and many China companies will domicile in US.... Although labor is cheaper in China....plenty of room to pay some US workers and still be more competitive.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world Let's make GLOBALISATION work in favor of the US....
Aren't you confusing low taxation and no taxation ? Here is what the OP had as criteria for country B: But Switzerland has individual taxes. Its lower than US, but it does have it. So Switzerland is not country B.
Govt can produce massive wealth. Just pass a trillion $ spending bill and hand it out to your buddies. LOL