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

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'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.'


The bulk of the federal budget, after defense spending, isn't spent on those things.

[caerfrli.livejournal.com]

I agree that people like us (in the top bracket) don't pay enough taxes but I also think fraud and waste will always be with us to some extent. Chances are cutting back on government's income will only affect government services. The amount stolen will probably remain the same.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

I tend to agree with you here.

[lovefromgirl.livejournal.com]

Americans seem perfectly happy to not have socialized healthcare and to drive on shitty roads.

Not this American! I'd rather be taxed all to hell and get, as you've said, bang for my buck.

Neither am I particularly proud to be from an enormous, warlike, undereducated country with a vicious class divide. I don't see where my tax money is better spent on the military.

I agree with your second-to-last paragraph, but please tone down the snootiness. You're not better than I am because you were born over the border.

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

I remember when I first got my hands on the libertarian Taxpayer's bill of rights (TABOR) in Colorado. I investigated it along with some clients for a project, and I was shocked at how services and education stats in CO had dropped from the top 15 to the bottom 20 states before and after TABOR came to be. The more I checked the more I understood that if you want broad quality, tax cutting is never going to be the way. I can't fault anyone for wanting to affect the system when it comes to what they want gov. to spent on, but that's a different issue. A reasonably sized government apparatus is key to quality, as is transparency, voting and debate.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

This is truly interesting.

Now... how about a tax lj cut?

1 of 2

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

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.

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):

Bumbling by top disaster-management officials fueled a perception of general inaction, one that was compounded by impassioned news anchors. In fact, the response to Hurricane Katrina was by far the largest--and fastest-rescue effort in U.S. history, with nearly 100,000 emergency personnel arriving on the scene within three days of the storm's landfall.

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.

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.

There is one good tax

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

I keep pointing people in this direction. I just hope that people will understand it one day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Value_Tax
http://taxreform.com.au/

"The single tax is so simple, so fundamental, and so easy to carry into effect that I have no doubt that it will be about the last land reform the world will ever get."

- Clarence Darrow