ext_113563 (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
allhatnocattle.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2010-04-18 11:46 am
allhatnocattle.livejournal.com) wrote in talkpolitics2010-04-18 11:46 am
Entry tags:
A case for higher taxes?
*inspired by a question from ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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.
patriotress, a Tea Party type gal who wants her taxes loweredIn 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.
Re: regarding FEMA's response to Katrina
Well, I think it's a mix of that and the Bush administration's relative incompetence in regard to messaging. But the marketing/perception, however you want to put it, is something that's been in place for ages. Our government has been reformed, against the will of its formation, as a first responder as opposed to a centralized assist. It's no wonder, then, that a government that has never achieved that perception fails at one of the biggest natural disasters of modern times.
OK, so let's get back to value. The perceived value in having FEMA is they were there at the ready in case of emergency. This is why American tax money goes to them. It's not a huge expectation to have a team at the ready able to fly out responding to emergencies in less then 12hr.
Except that the perceived value is not reality. Are we dealing in perception or reality? Remember, FEMA stands for Federal Emergency Management Agency - it's not there to respond, but to manage situations.
I mean it might be awesome that FEMA might have been working behind the scenes organizing, but that seems like tax money better spent elsewhere. They should have been prepared. I mean the weathermen predicted days before that hurricane was going to make landfall somewhere.
And they were! They responded as quickly as they could, and the federal response was among the fastest we've seen.
There is huge perceived value in actually seeing FEMA boots on the ground in action. Citizens see that and their money is well spent. You don't see that and it's been wasted. Perception is everything.
So are you arguing that we should be divvying tax money based on perception rather than results? That seems a little dangerous - as against most federal spending as I am, I do recognize that spending today may not see fruition for a decade, after all.
Re: regarding FEMA's response to Katrina
FEMA was formed in 1979 to not just manage but respond to disasters. It has changed over the years, now part of Homeland Security.
U.S. House of Representatives Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina...
* "The Secretary Department of Homeland Security should have designated the Principal Federal Official on Saturday, two days prior to landfall, from the roster of PFOs who had successfully completed the required training, unlike then FEMA Director Michael Brown. Considerable confusion was caused by the Secretary’s PFO decisions."
* "DHS and FEMA lacked adequate trained and experienced staff for the Katrina response."
* "The readiness of FEMA’s national emergency response teams was inadequate and reduced the effectiveness of the federal response."
* "Long-standing weaknesses and the magnitude of the disaster overwhelmed FEMA’s ability to provide emergency shelter and temporary housing."
* "FEMA logistics and contracting systems did not support a targeted, massive, and sustained provision of commodities."
* "Before Katrina, FEMA suffered from a lack of sufficiently trained procurement professionals." (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/katrinareport/execsummary.pdf)
The FEMA top guy Mike Brown was fired over FEMA's failures. You can praise them for their quick response all you want. But I can fly from Juno Alaska To US Virgin Islands in 6hr.s, which is still faster then FEMA can with all their gov't resources.
Re: regarding FEMA's response to Katrina