A case for higher taxes?
18/4/10 11:46![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
allhatnocattle.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpolitics*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.
1 of 2
Date: 18/4/10 21:03 (UTC)The federalism argument was made above. Top-down control simply doesn't work.
If FEMA showed up in NewOrleans during Katrina and saved people right away there's value in that.
They did (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/2315076):
Part of having a "strong" central government and high taxes is the misguided expectation that the "strong" central government is capable of being a proactive first responder, when the reality is that the best it can ever do in situations such as Katrina is be a secondary responder and react to what's needed. The strong central government we have did not respond the way you'd expect, and instead of recognizing the reality of the situation, you think it has to do with low taxes and low value for the dollar?
Ikea or Walmart furniture is priced right but so is the quality.
I can't speak to Ikea (although the bookcases I have from them have been excellent), but Wal-Mart offers good products at low prices. This perception makes no sense, because they're not selling anything special - just the same products you can get in other places at a lower price.
If anything, Wal-Mart, Target, et al should be a model of efficiency regarding how a government should work in terms of cost/benefit. There's no reason why, for instance, federal workers should be paid so much more than their private counterparts (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm).
I don't mind paying more to have quality.
More reason to push for more localized control - if you want to pay more, go someplace with like-minded people.
More taxes paid out should translate into better quality government services.
Duh.
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.
Instead, we pay more and put up with crap. And then the answer from the powers that be is that we're not paying enough, and that's why we have crap. It doesn't occur to them that the crap may be from the structure, not the available money.
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.
With this line, you completely nuked the point of this post. I hope you noticed that.
You forgot half the argument.
Date: 18/4/10 21:22 (UTC)Re: You forgot half the argument.
Date: 18/4/10 21:25 (UTC)Aaah..
Date: 18/4/10 21:41 (UTC)The rest of us prefer "Use the right tool for the job, not one tool for every job. "
Top-down may not work for most situations, but it works for some, and those are the situations where it should be used; usually mixed with other modes, as appropriate to the situation. Same holds true for any organizational model.
Claiming that there is no such thing as a central organizing system that works is beyond absurd when we can look around at the results of same every single day.
Running a car company? Design the car (top), order the parts (top,) build the factories (top, onsite team), build the cars (onsite team, supervised by top), market the car (top), etc etc.
Re: Aaah..
Date: 18/4/10 23:37 (UTC)Design is not done from the top, designers are hired by the top to do design work. Jobs are delegated.
No shit.
Date: 19/4/10 07:31 (UTC)Your broad brush is more like a push broom, and just as ineffective at painting the actual picture.
Re: No shit.
Date: 19/4/10 12:25 (UTC)no, it isn't. American corporations work because the head honcho is not the one making every decision. How do you not know this?
Re: You forgot half the argument.
Date: 18/4/10 21:50 (UTC)Re: You forgot half the argument.
Date: 18/4/10 23:38 (UTC)Re: You forgot half the argument.
Date: 19/4/10 00:00 (UTC)Re: You forgot half the argument.
Date: 19/4/10 00:14 (UTC)regarding FEMA's response to Katrina
Date: 19/4/10 00:44 (UTC)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.
Now there's no real value in FEMA until FEMA shows up at the emergency. 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.
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.
Re: regarding FEMA's response to Katrina
Date: 19/4/10 01:36 (UTC)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
Date: 19/4/10 02:21 (UTC)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
Date: 19/4/10 12:47 (UTC)Re: regarding FEMA's response to Katrina
Date: 19/4/10 07:39 (UTC)http://www.miller-mccune.com/politics/fumbling-fema-wants-back-in-the-game-3403/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/29/AR2005082901445.html
So much for private always out performing public.
Here's hoping that's been corrected so it actually works now.
regarding Walmart crap
Date: 19/4/10 00:52 (UTC)Re: regarding Walmart crap
Date: 19/4/10 01:41 (UTC)So is a solid oak dresser from Wal-Mart the same as a solid oak dresser from Ethan Allen? Shouldn't we be comparing the quality of like things?
A cheap Made in China screwdriver from Walmart is not the same as a screwdriver from KleinTools.
This is better. But, as you see, Wal-Mart sells those tools (http://wwwndc.walmart.com/ip/Klein-Tools-Crimping-Cutting-Tools/13208817). Is there a difference between that cutter and one you bought direct from Klein or from one of your vendors?
Walmart sells crap.
Few stores don't sell crap. In any retail outlet where you're catering to a large segment of the population, you'll always offer budget items alongside the higher quality stuff. Always. What Wal-Mart offers is not crap - it's the same stuff you're buying somewhere else.
Re: regarding Walmart crap
Date: 19/4/10 02:58 (UTC)YES! Better example is RidgidTools of Elmira Ohio because I've personally had this experience, anecdotal as it is. Ridgid has an awesome reputation. Ridgid is now sold at Home Depot. I save money going to Home Depot to buy Ridgid pipe wrench, the "same" pipe wrench sold at my wholesaler. But it feels... I don't know, different. It's imperceptible. It just doesn't grab right, and doesn't let go as easy. Can't figure it out. Until my brother got job at HomeDepot as maintenance manager for all western Canada.
HomeDepot is the single largest client for Ridgid. Such bulk sales demand discount. Ridgid has to cut a corner. So they make a second tier product for HomeDepot. It's a lower quality. I think it's in the steel itself. But it is different.
I'm not sure if a Klein sidecutter from Walmart is 2nd tier, or Chinese knock-off, or the real deal. But I don't trust the retailer.
Discount retailers sell discount goods. High end retailers sell high end goods. What is so hard to understand? Maybe Walmart does sell an oak desk, but I sure wouldn't trust the quality in comparison to Ethen Allen. I mean there's a reason it'll be cheaper, not just bulk sales.
Re: regarding Walmart crap
Date: 19/4/10 12:46 (UTC)Not all dressers are alike, but Wal-Mart has everything (http://www.walmart.com/search/search-ng.do?search_constraint=0&ic=48_0&search_query=dresser+oak&Find.x=0&Find.y=0&Find=Find).
I'm not sure if a Klein sidecutter from Walmart is 2nd tier, or Chinese knock-off, or the real deal. But I don't trust the retailer.
I've never heard this before, but I'd have to look into it further. It doesn't seem sensible, though - what you're saying is that Klein is willing to ruin its own brand. That seems counterproductive.
Discount retailers sell discount goods. High end retailers sell high end goods. What is so hard to understand?
I think you misunderstand what Wal-Mart is. It sells goods, and it sells them cheaply, but I wouldn't call Wal-Mart a "discount retailer." They're not selling discount goods, but high quality name brand stuff.
On nuking the point of the post
Date: 19/4/10 01:16 (UTC)One can pay a lot for "supposed" quality and still not receive it. But if you pay too little you are absolutely guaranteeing that you're getting crap. I mean you can't possibly afford quality.
But what I really wanted to focus on wasn't quality, but value. Of course the two are inter-related and do overlap.
Re: On nuking the point of the post
Date: 19/4/10 01:41 (UTC)