A case for higher taxes?

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

*inspired by a question from patriotress, a Tea Party type gal who wants her taxes lowered



In principle I am against low taxes. Not that I like paying them. A full third is missing off my pay every month, and it grows to nearly 40% after including sales tax on purchases (9 outta 10 provinces have a provincial sales tax as well as the federal one, Alberta is the exception).

Taxes pay for the services we all enjoy and need. They are a necessary evil. Lower taxes means that the nation either has to cut services or go into debt. Americans seem perfectly happy to not have socialized healthcare and to drive on shitty roads. I like nice roads, nice schools, etc.

What we're really talking about is value. I get the feeling the frustration in the Tea Party is they are not seeing much bang for their bucks. They hear about a lot of waste. So by lowering taxes they force government to streamline, eliminating the bullshit and get down to the basic function of government, governing. And not be in the business of providing services they seem so bad at delivering. As they say, they want small government.

I think if they saw value for their tax dollars they might change their tune. If FEMA showed up in NewOrleans during Katrina and saved people right away there's value in that. There's no value in responding to a natural disaster later the foreign NGO's and instead of saving people, they make the priority in shooting looters.

Ikea or Walmart furniture is priced right but so is the quality. Usually you end up buying a new futon every few year because it simply doesn't last. Where if you save up and spend a few thousand bucks on a decent sofa you'll have it for life. I don't mind paying more to have quality. I don't like saving a few bucks to get crap. Of course quality isn't always affordable and a large price tag is never a real guarantee of anything.

And it's the same with taxes... to a point. More taxes paid out should translate into better quality government services. Whether it's services we personally use every day (public roads) or emergency services (police, fire) or services that are not used personally (National Defense, trade negotiations). I would rather pay more to ensure better quality then pay less and put up with crap.

Of course by no means is this any guarantee of quality. There isn't a direct correlating relationship. Just as you can pay a lot of money for a Lexus that rolls over and doesn't stop, you can pay a scant fraction for a 1988 Dodge Diplomat that is totally awesome.

Tax revenue is often wasted on crap. We've all heard stories about the government buying $1000 hammers. Some of the crap is alright, depending on your perspective. Like the latest greatest nuke, as if we need a better nuke.

Private industry perhaps has a better track record for not wasting money. The problems of the recession can be blamed on big companies spending money on stupidity. I mean if I was a bank issuing loans, I might want to make sure the borrowers have the means to pay them back. If I ran a car company, I might not give a project manager a bonus for a car that doesn't work (looking at you, Lexus).

Waste is still waste, private or public. Private industry going into debt usually closes up shop under debt of bankruptcy. Where a government service is often propped up in a way so they can continue to provide services no matter the bottom line, able to deal with the debt in ways unavailable to private industry. This lends itself better for the consumer.

Healthcare is a hot button issue. In Canada we've been slowly moving towards more privatization. I listen to the proposals touting that private company can provide medical services cheaper and with greater competition even cheaper still. However I've never heard of medical services in USA having price wars or going on sale. Maybe without the government bureaucracy the private service will be cheaper, but I see no valid evidence of that. Government does streamline health services for better efficiency all the time. I would rather just have my taxes kept high and deal with the government.

Lowering taxes is an alright principle in the abstract. As I think I said before, I think the idea is to force greater efficiency and eliminate waste. But it seems to me lowering taxes guarantees the value per tax has to decrease as well. Without the revenue quality of services need to be cut, or services eliminated altogether. So which service to you relax on or eliminate? The DEA? How about getting rid of all those pesky anti-counterfeiting measures? Do you really need a chip in your passport? Or the 200 military bases?

Again it's a matter of value. Americans seem really proud of having the biggest, best, baddest military in the world. They can see the value of their tax money in this achievement. Just as Canadians see the real value in paying our taxes through having socialized healthcare. We all like value.

Comments

2 of 2

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Private industry perhaps has a better track record for not wasting money.

It's not perhaps. Private industry must refrain from waste, or that private industry fails.

The problems of the recession can be blamed on big companies spending money on stupidity.

No, it can't. The problems of the recession can be blamed on too much centralized pressure.

I mean if I was a bank issuing loans, I might want to make sure the borrowers have the means to pay them back.

Good thing we weren't, you know, incentivizing people to give loans to otherwise-unworthy applicants.

If I ran a car company, I might not give a project manager a bonus for a car that doesn't work (looking at you, Lexus).

Contracts are contracts. Bad analogy.

However I've never heard of medical services in USA having price wars or going on sale. Maybe without the government bureaucracy the private service will be cheaper, but I see no valid evidence of that.

We can't have price wars here because the rules are so centralized. We don't have a real market in medicine, so we're kind of screwed there. But yes, remove a lot of the bureaucracy and it would be cheaper, no doubt whatsoever. Need valid evidence? Look at the public v. private costs above. Look how well private industry works in terms of efficiency.

Government does streamline health services for better efficiency all the time. I would rather just have my taxes kept high and deal with the government.

Goverment has shown no streamlining ability. And you'd rather deal with the government? Really? What if the only store you could shop at was Wal-Mart? The only restaurant you could eat at was Burger King. The only clothes available were from Old Navy? Part of efficiency and cost-savings is competition and choice. We lack a lot of that in medicine in the US, but it's still better than the alternatives. We could improve medicine significantly by reintroducing that competitive spirit.

But it seems to me lowering taxes guarantees the value per tax has to decrease as well.

Does it? Lowering money to a government organization might require them to streamline operations and do more with less. You know, like every business has had to do in the last couple years. Like how manufacturing exports and productivity is great in the US even as manufacturing jobs disappear.

So which service to you relax on or eliminate? The DEA? How about getting rid of all those pesky anti-counterfeiting measures? Do you really need a chip in your passport? Or the 200 military bases?

Now you're thinking like a conservative. Welcome to why I believe what I believe.

Again it's a matter of value. Americans seem really proud of having the biggest, best, baddest military in the world. They can see the value of their tax money in this achievement. Just as Canadians see the real value in paying our taxes through having socialized healthcare. We all like value.

The difference is that the Canadians don't know any better while the Americans don't have much of a choice, given that we tend to be world police.

Good thing we weren't, you know, incentivizing people to give loans to otherwise-unworthy applicants

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

Or, you know, incentivizing companies to take massive risks in pursuit of profit by removing decades old legislation that prevented them from, say, consolidating into inefficiently regulated cross-function financial giants? Giants that then, for one example, opaquely securitized said loans and sold the resutling fraudulent assets to unsuspecting clients (including police, teacher, etc pension funds and municipalities). Giants that then took out colossal insurance policies on those doomed securities from an insurance giant also deemed too big to fail, thereby guaranteeing that when they did (as designed) that the resulting bail out would go directly from taxpayers wallets into said companies pockets.

'Cuz that would be crazy..

Re: Good thing we weren't, you know, incentivizing people to give loans to otherwise-unworthy applic

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

'Cuz that would be crazy..

It would, considering it's like applying an icy hot patch to try and cure cancer.

Re: Good thing we weren't, you know, incentivizing people to give loans to otherwise-unworthy ap

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

You do realize this wasn't hypothetical, right?

Re: 2 of 2

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Thank you for the huge reply. That's awesome. Too bad you can't hide it behind a cut, lol.

I have so much to say on what you've written here, but chores calling. I'll reply later.

Re: 2 of 2

[buggerthis22.livejournal.com]

"The difference is that the Canadians don't know any better while the Americans don't have much of a choice, given that we tend to be world police."

Just curious... why are we the world police??? Sometimes I feel like we butt in where we don't belong.

I'm sorry, but hearing that the government is funding a project to make a jet that can fly itself... well that kinda makes me feel like my tax dollars are going to jack shit. I don't like the funding that goes to the military. I feel it's a little excessive. I'm sorry if I don't believe we need a jet that flies itself. If we're spending money on that sort of stuff, just work on improving what we have! We have plenty of pilots capable of flying our jets. We don't need robots right now. There are more important issues to worry about than that. Maybe it creates jobs, but for who?? For people who have a degree in advanced robotic science or some crap. That's not really making jobs for the rest of the nation. In fact, I think it would be safe to say (if they are sucessful) it would actually cut back military jobs since we won't need pilots if it can fly itself.

On the other hand, funding projects like improving/making new roads creates jobs for the average joe. I think we should be focusing our taxes on projects like that. Our country is in desperate need of jobs that are accessible to the middle-class. I think we need to rethink our position on butting into everyone's freaking business. Think about the amount of homeless and starving people living on our own soil that we do nothing about. Yet when Haiti has an earthquake, we raise like six million dollars to help them. Now, don't get me wrong, I think it's great that we're trying to reach out to others in their time of need, but there comes a point where a country should reach out to its own people. The last time we did something huge to help our own people was during 9-11 and Katrina. I'm happy paying taxes when it helps our people.

We are Team America, World Police!

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Because we were the last suckers standing from that little thing called the Cold War.....

Re: 2 of 2

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Just curious... why are we the world police??? Sometimes I feel like we butt in where we don't belong.

It's been the case since World War II, when we became the only democractic superpower and were forced to do defense for Japan and repair Europe. Then the Soviet Union fell and things got even worse.

It's not a role I'm happy we have, but it's a role that's somewhat thrust upon us.

I'm sorry, but hearing that the government is funding a project to make a jet that can fly itself... well that kinda makes me feel like my tax dollars are going to jack shit.

On one hand, that has huge positive military applications. On the other, I do tend to agree with you on the feeling you get from it, at least until here:

If we're spending money on that sort of stuff, just work on improving what we have! We have plenty of pilots capable of flying our jets. We don't need robots right now. There are more important issues to worry about than that. Maybe it creates jobs, but for who?? For people who have a degree in advanced robotic science or some crap. That's not really making jobs for the rest of the nation. In fact, I think it would be safe to say (if they are sucessful) it would actually cut back military jobs since we won't need pilots if it can fly itself.

You never, ever, impede progress because of "jobs" or something like that. That's the road to failure. Change or die.

On the other hand, funding projects like improving/making new roads creates jobs for the average joe.

No, it really doesn't. And we're not far from automating that process, either.

I think we should be focusing our taxes on projects like that. Our country is in desperate need of jobs that are accessible to the middle-class.

No, we're not. We're hungry for jobs period right now, but that's because of the recession, not because of any other reason. The middle class is not in trouble.

The last time we did something huge to help our own people was during 9-11 and Katrina. I'm happy paying taxes when it helps our people.

Are you familiar with our Constitution?

Re: 2 of 2

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

"trust" is a funny synonym for "desired"

Re: 2 of 2

[buggerthis22.livejournal.com]

Are you even part of the middle-class? They're the ones getting their homes foreclosed on. They're the majority of the unemployed. I don't know how people can't understand that. They are the backbone of America, and we so often neglect them. If the middle-class decided to start a coup, there would be nothing to stop them. They are the majority of America, and they are the legs this country stands on. Currently, they are crippling under the weight of the recession. Why should they be ignored? Why should they be disregarded as unimportant?

You never, ever, impede progress because of "jobs" or something like that. That's the road to failure. Change or die.

"Progress for the sake of progress must be discouraged."

Now, how does having a jet fly itself really help us? Oh yeah, it adds to our super-power role. That's it though. We're just stronger. When is enough enough for the military? Apparently never. There is no serious need for such a thing. We're still the military super-power. We still have the resources to fight another world war if necessary. The only threat out there for America is probably China. That's mostly because we've borrowed so much money from them. I don't know if this is actually true, but I have heard it said that they have a much larger army than us. I wouldn't doubt it considering their population. I just think it's absolutely ridiculous to justify exorbitant spending on some damn robotics project. It is NOT a necessity. We should be focused on the things in our country that need to be fixed. The things that are necessary. Now, I'm not saying it wouldn't have good applications in the future, but it can wait!

How do you figure construction jobs etc. do not create jobs for the average person? In most situations, the jobs I'm referring to do not require degrees of any sort. They require some training and ability to do the job. By the way, I would hate to have you be the customer service representative I get on the phone. You have to be polite for a position like that. Our money-hungry country has outsourced millions of jobs that probably could have prevented this recession if they'd stayed here. I hate calling my cell-phone company and talking to someone who I can barely understand. Not to mention, I have to ask the same question 18 times in order to get anywhere. Now, I don't mean to sound racist because I know that those jobs have helped those countries very much, but at what cost? Corporations are all too happy to pay them shit wages so they can make a few bucks. Unfortunately, not enough people are willing to boycott the companies that do things like this.

Obviously, I grew up in America and learned about the Constitution. My problem with it? Oh yeah, it changes all the fucking time. Sometimes I honestly think our forefathers are rolling in their graves. America has become the very thing it was supposed to be against when it first became its own country. Also, how are my taxes helping people? The only ones who benefit from military spending are those involved in the military. I personally consider myself a bit of a pacifist and would never join the military. Not like I could due to things like flat feet and asthma. Again, I say that the jet for example would actually cut military jobs. Great, just what we need, more unemployed people!!! *face palm*

Re: 2 of 2

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

being the world police is entirely a volunteer position.

Actually it's not even a police role. They'll tell you it's for good but it's motivated by greed and empire building. very few year in usa history that they have not been at state of war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Wars) If anything they been consistent

Re: 2 of 2

[tridus.livejournal.com]

It's not perhaps. Private industry must refrain from waste, or that private industry fails.

Yeah, right. Private industry wastes gobs of money, and the bigger the company the more they waste. This only holds true for companies in real competitive markets with strong price pressure.

The difference is that the Canadians don't know any better while the Americans don't have much of a choice, given that we tend to be world police.

Yeah, all that money bombing Iraq was definitely money much better spent then on something like those clueless Canadians might spend it on. I mean, doctors for the poor? Pfft. That's completely useless when there's places completely uninvolved with Al Qaeda to blow up!

Re: 2 of 2

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Yeah, right. Private industry wastes gobs of money, and the bigger the company the more they waste. This only holds true for companies in real competitive markets with strong price pressure.

How are you defining waste?

Yeah, all that money bombing Iraq was definitely money much better spent then on something like those clueless Canadians might spend it on. I mean, doctors for the poor? Pfft. That's completely useless when there's places completely uninvolved with Al Qaeda to blow up!

I know you're being sarcastic, but you're actually right and you don't even realize it.

Re: 2 of 2

[tridus.livejournal.com]

How are you defining waste?

The same as it's defined anywhere else, either where money gets spent without accomplishing anything or where more money then is required is spent to accomplish the goal.

The problem with government "waste" is that most of the time, it's actually due to political considerations or interference. And the politicians are picked by a public who keeps electing the same type of clowns over and over again.

(Course, sometimes people actually mean that when they say "government". Being in the public service myself though, there's a significant distinction between what the bureaucracy wants to do, and what the politicians want to do. The politicians win because that's how democracy works, but then the dumb shit that we get told to do gets pinned on us.)

I know you're being sarcastic, but you're actually right and you don't even realize it.

How so? The main thing accomplished in Iraq was drawing resources away from Afghanistan and Packistan, which allowed the situation there to deterioriate.

Making it easy for poor people to see doctors has boosted life expectancies in Canada to higher then in the US. So that money seems to be doing something. (Course, short sighted politicial decisions for the last 20 years are about to cause that system to implode. Sigh.)

Re: 2 of 2

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

This only holds true for companies in real competitive markets with strong price pressure.

This should be printed out in 72-point bold and placed above the desk of every supposed free-market advocate. Srsly. The number of markets that actually have strong price competition? Not very many at all. Most industries run on oligopolistic monopoly.

On healthcare

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Why do you think Canadians lack choice in healthcare? If I don't like my Harvard trained doctor I can always change doctors to somebody trained at McMaster University. If I don't like clinic or hospital I can go to any other clinic or hospital. Socialized healthcare provides more choice then American free enterprise does! I'm not stifled by trying to find a doctor/hospital that accepts my particular insurance plan, or limited to only docs trained in the Caribbean.

Free enterprise healthcare isn't about competition keeping prices down. No trade really discounts their services. No doctors or architects or plumbers. They might at first to build up client base, but it's pretty standard that the rate is the rate.

Socialized medicine keeps costs down by not only having a monopoly, but the greatest possible client base of 100% of the population. It's every corporation's wet dream. Having 4 insurance companies competing for your business means that none of them have 100% of the population as their client base.

Yes they streamline. They have to. Of course because cash flow limitations, but also because of campaign promises. I seem to recall Obama and McCain both making similar promises of eliminating "pork" (as Americans say).

Re: On healthcare

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Why do you think Canadians lack choice in healthcare?

Their choice is the government or the government plus private. Either way, you can't escape paying the government.

Socialized healthcare provides more choice then American free enterprise does!

No it doesn't. "You must go through the government" is not a choice.

I'm not stifled by trying to find a doctor/hospital that accepts my particular insurance plan, or limited to only docs trained in the Caribbean.

Neither are Americans. That's one of the myths of our system, even before the health care bill passed. That most use insurance to receive care does not mean that they must.

Free enterprise healthcare isn't about competition keeping prices down. No trade really discounts their services.

Really? You said you were a plumber, right? Your trade isn't influenced by price? You really don't think people check prices?

Socialized medicine keeps costs down by not only having a monopoly, but the greatest possible client base of 100% of the population.

So monopolies...lower prices? O_O

Re: On healthcare

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Single payer does not limit providers. I can go through providers here in Alberta, or next door in another province or even cross the border and get service in USA (pay cash and be reimbursed later). How am I limited?

If so inclined I can pay cash for a doctor visit, as I actually did once when I didn't have my Alberta Health Card on me. But the single payer system means all have health insurance that covers just about every medical service.

Sure, people shop around. Just as do for plumbers, architects, lawyers, and any other trade. None of these trades have sales, or conduct price wars. The price charged is the price paid. I don't understand how that's especially competitive. Service is service.

Re: 2 of 2

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Private Industry can be just as wasteful and still get by. See Fannie, Freddy, Goldma, AIG, Behrs-Stein, GMC... of course this has been an exceptional few years. So look at Harley Davidson, Cushman, Triumph, Indian, and a slew of other motorcycle companies still in business today in one form or another. Survival of the fittest, eh? Each and every one has has some sort of government bail-out over the years ( most famously Reagan's 45% import tarriff on bikes over 700cc greatly assisted American bike builders)

Oh, you can say it wasn't waste that got these companies in trouble. It was failure to adapt and innovate. It was changing markets. Whatever. All of these are in fact wasteful practices. I mean they made products that didn't sell, or didn't work, or didn't turn a profit. These are perhaps as wasteful as any government project that don't work.

Maybe not. As Tridus points out, there are built in interfere efficiencies to gov't business. I know at least our respective gov'ts both strive to shed the extra weight of inefficiency. Review Obama's and McCain's and even Canadian campaign promises.

Re: 2 of 2

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Private Industry can be just as wasteful and still get by. See Fannie, Freddy, Goldma, AIG, Behrs-Stein, GMC...

How are we saying they were wasteful? Stupid doesn't equal wasteful.

So look at Harley Davidson, Cushman, Triumph, Indian, and a slew of other motorcycle companies still in business today in one form or another. Survival of the fittest, eh? Each and every one has has some sort of government bail-out over the years ( most famously Reagan's 45% import tarriff on bikes over 700cc greatly assisted American bike builders)

Tariffs are wrong, but they're not bailouts. And besides, I don't know if you've looked, but Harley's are still more expensive than their imported counterparts. The benefit of the tariff cannot replace status.

All of these are in fact wasteful practices. I mean they made products that didn't sell, or didn't work, or didn't turn a profit. These are perhaps as wasteful as any government project that don't work.

So, in your world, attempts to innovate should be discouraged? Am I reading that right?

Re: 2 of 2

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

It's not perhaps. Private industry must refrain from waste, or that private industry fails.

So your thesis is that no private industry fails?

Re: 2 of 2

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Not my thesis at all.

Re: 2 of 2

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I work for a multinational company and waste is not acceptable.

Re: 2 of 2

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

3 guys in our company, and indeed charge the customer for everything, whenever we can, even our mistakes. Heck, Safeway charges it's customers because they have shoftlifters stealing stuff. Oil companies charge us for all the test wells that come dry. Airlines have to charge enough to make up for all their down time. Mechanics are charging full price to have an apprentice learn on your vehicle. Etc, etc, etc...
It makes perfect business sense that waste is acceptable, to a degree. And you're right, where it becomes unacceptable is at the point when they can't charge the customers for it.