Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

[MadMojoMonkey]

The government needs $XX dollars to maintain programs and services. These dollars come from taxes, because that is the most direct way to ensure the flow of money (power) to the government is mitigated by the citizens. Removing taxes from the equation means the government is NOT beholden to the citizens to maintain the essential income it needs to operate.

So the gov't needs $ from the citizens. How shall the citizens choose to divide this burden among themselves?
Taking a flat tax across the board will cripple the finances of the lowest wage earners, while barely effecting the highest wage earners.
Sure this is fair... in a way... but there are other ways to be fair.

Do you propose a flat tax? What do you propose?

***
As a side note:

In America, the government is composed of citizens, elected by vote, with limited terms (in most cases). To call out the government as an "other" entity, of which you are not a part, is a personal choice here. We are all invited into the political sphere. Choosing to opt out and point fingers is your right. That choice says a lot about your commitment to your rant, IMO.

[wufwugy]

The government needs $XX dollars to maintain programs and services. These dollars come from taxes, because that is the most direct way to ensure the flow of money (power) to the government is mitigated by the citizens.

Taxes are indeed the most effective way to ensure the flow of money to the government, but they are not that effective at providing the power of mitigation by the citizens. This is backbone behind why some people favor a free market without government involvement. The arguments I've been making ITT and in other threads are based on the idea that citizens cannot mitigate policy that well when it is supported by taxes but that they can do so in a market system where choice is a powerful tool.

Removing taxes from the equation means the government is NOT beholden to the citizens to maintain the essential income it needs to operate.

I think you've got this backwards. Removing taxes from the equation means the government can't operate anymore. Any government that could operate would be one whose revenues are by choice, and that is when it would be beholden to the citizens.

A tax regime has very little accountability to its citizens. Entities that gain from the choice from consumers have a ton of accountability to those consumers. This is why we see businesses all over the place constantly adapting to the wishes of their consumers, yet only once in a blue moon do we see the government adapt. Everybody applauds when SCOTUS finally made gay marriage legal, but the truth is that gay marriage would have been legal for any who choose it forever ago if there was no government involvement in the first place.

So the gov't needs $ from the citizens. How shall the citizens choose to divide this burden among themselves?
Taking a flat tax across the board will cripple the finances of the lowest wage earners, while barely effecting the highest wage earners.
Sure this is fair... in a way... but there are other ways to be fair.

Do you propose a flat tax? What do you propose?

I like a flat tax. It causes fewer market distortions, deters special interest rent seeking, and eliminates the "divide and conquer" strategy that is used to increase taxes by having multiple brackets.

The media is not accurate in their descriptions of flat taxes harming the poor. They almost never assess the real incomes and definitely never provide sound economic theory. The real incomes of the poor are higher than people think because of lots of redistribution and their social mobility is much lower because of the same redistribution and regulation. The claims that a flat tax hurts the poor are hush-hush about the fact that the only way it could is if it meant the poor received fewer benefits that they did not earn. A flat tax is a tax cut to everybody, which is the best sort of fiscal return to citizenry. No flat tax proposals I know about apply to people at the poverty level, and it's not like the redistributed benefits are helping the poor anyways. We have created so much welfare over time that if it worked the economy would be incredible.

I don't favor taxes on income or capital. Sales, property, employee-side payroll, and land are the most economically sound ones I know of, but they all have their drawbacks. Income and the various capital taxes incentivize some really crappy behavior and have the opposite effect than they're meant to.

***
As a side note:

In America, the government is composed of citizens, elected by vote, with limited terms (in most cases). To call out the government as an "other" entity, of which you are not a part, is a personal choice here. We are all invited into the political sphere. Choosing to opt out and point fingers is your right. That choice says a lot about your commitment to your rant, IMO.

But it's not. Nobody can opt out. We can choose to not participate in policy but we cannot choose to not participate in funding whatever policies are in place.

I bet if you went line by line in the laws of the nation, you would find you disagree with a hefty chunk of them, probably the majority of them. Then if you thought you wanted to change them, you would realize that your power to do so is tiny. This is where the market comes in. You would then have the ability to choose which businesses and policies you wish to support with ease. You could opt out of eating at McDonald's, but you cannot opt out of the monopoly on violence.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Taxes are indeed the most effective way to ensure the flow of money to the government, but they are not that effective at providing the power of mitigation by the citizens.

IDK what you mean by power of mitigation, but it doesn't sound like the financial power to which I was referring. I did not mean to imply that financial was the only form of power at the gov't's disposal.

I think you've got this backwards. Removing taxes from the equation means the government can't operate anymore. Any government that could operate would be one whose revenues are by choice, and that is when it would be beholden to the citizens.

So you just said that the ONLY way for public bureaucracy to make money is by taxation?
Have you heard of government owned industries?
You must have. So this use of language is intentionally misleading, or intended to to stir an emotional response.

{I deleted everything past this because it seems pointless to argue definitions over basic words that are common parlance.}

This conversation is not educational for me; I'm sorry if I wasted any of your time.

[wufwugy]

IDK what you mean by power of mitigation, but it doesn't sound like the financial power to which I was referring. I did not mean to imply that financial was the only form of power at the gov't's disposal.

You're suggesting that citizens being forced to finance the government is what gives them mitigation capacity. Unless I misread what you originally said.

So you just said that the ONLY way for public bureaucracy to make money is by taxation?
Have you heard of government owned industries?
You must have. So this use of language is intentionally misleading, or intended to to stir an emotional response.

Your point is included in what I said. A government owned industry would gather its revenues by consumer choice. If it was not by consumer choice, it would be taxation. In this case, the taxation would come by the means of forced consumption, but that still is a tax (SCOTUS ruled as much in the ACA case a few years ago).

I have not attempted to mislead or evoke an emotional response.

{I deleted everything past this because it seems pointless to argue definitions over basic words that are common parlance.}

This conversation is not educational for me; I'm sorry if I wasted any of your time.

I think we're just getting started. A week or so ago, it appeared to me that you said something along the lines of not being interested in understanding the philosophy and function of government. The confusion that you have with my post is what I think includes the philosophy and function of government. To repeat the main example: when you thought I hadn't considered government owned industries, I actually had because they fall into either category of consumer choice or forced consumption/taxation.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You're suggesting that citizens being forced to finance the government is what gives them mitigation capacity. Unless I misread what you originally said.

You did.

Your point is included in what I said. A government owned industry would gather its revenues by consumer choice. If it was not by consumer choice, it would be taxation. In this case, the taxation would come by the means of forced consumption, but that still is a tax (SCOTUS ruled as much in the ACA case a few years ago).

I have not attempted to mislead or evoke an emotional response.

If my point is included in what you said, then your use of words is misleading to the point of conversation stopping in every post.

"Removing taxes from the equation means the government can't operate anymore."
False. Governments can operate using money from state-owned corporations. The consumers are outside the country, as the state exports all of the goods.

Any prevarication on your part to alter the meaning of that sentence after you posted it is a waste of our time.

I think we're just getting started. A week or so ago, it appeared to me that you said something along the lines of not being interested in understanding the philosophy and function of government. The confusion that you have with my post is what I think includes the philosophy and function of government. To repeat the main example: when you thought I hadn't considered government owned industries, I actually had because they fall into either category of consumer choice or forced consumption/taxation.

blah, blah...

That thing you wrote meant the opposite of the literal reading... again. I'm glad I wasted the time taking you seriously, just so you could tell me how you meant the thing you didn't write.

[wufwugy]

You did.

Then please clarify what you meant here:

The government needs $XX dollars to maintain programs and services. These dollars come from taxes, because that is the most direct way to ensure the flow of money (power) to the government is mitigated by the citizens.

If my point is included in what you said, then your use of words is misleading to the point of conversation stopping in every post.

I don't think that's the case. I have not improperly used words in this exchange.

"Removing taxes from the equation means the government can't operate anymore."

Here's the full quote

Removing taxes from the equation means the government can't operate anymore. Any government that could operate would be one whose revenues are by choice, and that is when it would be beholden to the citizens.

You are saying I said the first part but not the second part.

False. Governments can operate using money from state-owned corporations. The consumers are outside the country, as the state exports all of the goods.

This is consumption by choice. These state-owned corporations would be receiving revenues by the choice of the people in foreign countries to consume those exports.

That thing you wrote meant the opposite of the literal reading... again. I'm glad I wasted the time taking you seriously, just so you could tell me how you meant the thing you didn't write.

Maybe it was wrong for me to have earlier admitted that I have on occasion used a word or two in a way they're more extremely defined (while still being philosophically accurate), because it seems now you're seeing it where it isn't the case. I'm using standard definitions. It is the logic you use that I'm disagreeing with, yet it seems that you're brushing that off by assuming I'm just making up definitions or something.

[MadMojoMonkey]

This is consumption by choice. These state-owned corporations would be receiving revenues by the choice of the people in foreign countries to consume those exports.

Then the government is not beholden to its citizens for its income.

[Renton]

The government needs $XX dollars to maintain programs and services. These dollars come from taxes, because that is the most direct way to ensure the flow of money (power) to the government is mitigated by the citizens. Removing taxes from the equation means the government is NOT beholden to the citizens to maintain the essential income it needs to operate.

So the gov't needs $ from the citizens. How shall the citizens choose to divide this burden among themselves?
Taking a flat tax across the board will cripple the finances of the lowest wage earners, while barely effecting the highest wage earners.
Sure this is fair... in a way... but there are other ways to be fair.

Do you propose a flat tax? What do you propose?

A vast majority of what the government takes responsibility for would be better handled in the private sector through voluntary commerce. In my opinion the U.S. government's role should be much more limited than it is, but it seems like we should all be able to at least come to the agreement that $6 trillion in gross spending is excessive. That's 36% of the GDP. Do you honestly think that the benefits Americans are getting back from the state are comparable to that cost? And the saddest part is that 36% is actually low compared to most European countries.

As to how I feel about the tax code, I don't have that much of a problem wtih progressive taxation. The worst taxes are the corporate taxes which aren't really progressive at all, they're essentially a direct tax on economic growth, and growth happens to be crucial to people of all incomes. Inflation is another really awful tax that is regressive, affecting all of us equally, but hurting the poor the most as a percentage of their living standards.

I do see broad benefits to a flat tax purely from the perspective of greater simplicity. The unbelievably labyrinthine tax system causes a lot of people to evade or overpay without even knowing it, and allows the shrewd (often i.e. those who can afford excellent tax counsel) to dodge a lot of taxes. In other words, the more complicated the code is, the more regressive it necessarily is as well. The middle class gets fleeced in practice due to this.

In America, the government is composed of citizens, elected by vote, with limited terms (in most cases). To call out the government as an "other" entity, of which you are not a part, is a personal choice here. We are all invited into the political sphere. Choosing to opt out and point fingers is your right. That choice says a lot about your commitment to your rant, IMO.

The political system is well-insulated from the voter. Unless you one of the like 15% of the country who lives in a swing state, your vote doesn't even count. The legislature has had abysmal approval ratings for decades. The "is the country going in the right direction or the wrong track" poll has been wrong track by a landslide since the beginning of polling time. The government is absolutely a "they" entity. Every aspect of the U.S. government is a two party joke, all the way up to the SCOTUS, where practically every meaningful vote ever has been 5/4 based on whatever the party of the two-term president is.

The only way you can say that we take part of the credit for the actions of the state is if you're making the (flawed) argument that since we aren't in open French Revolution-style revolt, then we're in tacit approval of what it does.

[MadMojoMonkey]

A vast majority of what the government takes responsibility for would be better handled in the private sector through voluntary commerce. In my opinion the U.S. government's role should be much more limited than it is, but it seems like we should all be able to at least come to the agreement that $6 trillion in gross spending is excessive. That's 36% of the GDP. Do you honestly think that the benefits Americans are getting back from the state are comparable to that cost?

I'm not talking about how tax dollars are used or whether that use maximizes efficiency.

I wouldn't argue that the use of tax dollars maximizes efficiency in any way BESIDES the flow of money.

Although, I think history has shown every day for 150,000 years that nothing needs to be perfect in order for societies to run. It just needs to be good enough.

Do I wish taxes were used more efficiently? Yes. Am I bothered by the fact that there are inefficiencies? No.
The only stuff that bothers me is getting information out of context. Blah blah, so-n-so spent $XX,000 on a private jet. I used to care, but too many times, the context made me regret it. The world is complicated. I'm not claiming to understand how professionals could better do their job; I'm just curious as to what they do and why.

And the saddest part is that 36% is actually low compared to most European countries.

Don't be sad, bro. You can reconcile cognitive dissonance in other ways. I was raised Catholic; we train in guilt.

As to how I feel about the tax code, I don't have that much of a problem wtih progressive taxation. The worst taxes are the corporate taxes which aren't really progressive at all, they're essentially a direct tax on economic growth, and growth happens to be crucial to people of all incomes.

I'm not aware of the specific laws to which you refer.

My gut says:
Stifle a little growth vs. provide access to a slightly more robust infrastructure.
Surely there must be a balance.

Inflation is another really awful tax that is regressive, affecting all of us equally, but hurting the poor the most as a percentage of their living standards.

Inflation is a tax?

I thought inflation was... idk... a weird consequence of the free market and burgeoning wealth.

Are you sure it's a tax? Which state's representatives proposed inflation? What year?
Did wufwugy take over your account, too?

I do see broad benefits to a flat tax purely from the perspective of greater simplicity. The unbelievably labyrinthine tax system causes a lot of people to evade or overpay without even knowing it, and allows the shrewd (often i.e. those who can afford excellent tax counsel) to dodge a lot of taxes. In other words, the more complicated the code is, the more regressive it necessarily is as well. The middle class gets fleeced in practice due to this.

I can't argue that anything as complex as America's tax code is an absurd thing to call a law. If the citizens can't understand the law - which is reasonable since even tenured experts in economics only understand parts of it - then it's scandalous to expect them to understand how to follow the law.

Problem with the middle class is that almost everyone in America thinks they're middle class.
Most Americans think the classes are like this: impoverished < middle class < 1% - if they believe there's class in America at all.
Sorry, no.

The political system is well-insulated from the voter. Unless you one of the like 15% of the country who lives in a swing state, your vote doesn't even count.

We both know that the only way you get to vote for President is if you are in the electoral college.

I don't see how this ties in to taxes. It's the House of Representatives that creates all tax laws. The executive can only ask for something to be done. There is much precedent for this request to be ignored.

I don't really see how taxes tie in to making sense of an economic system with complicated non-capital trade mixed in with capital trade. Taxes provide capital for non-capital goods. This is a part of the economy. To say that business or people do not receive benefit from taxes is not swaying me.

I accept that some things for which we are taxed could be run better by private organizations, but I don't see why you feel that it's such a big deal.
(And I completely disagree on roads. Terrible idea. I'll pay taxes for roads, zoos, public parks, schools, libraries, police, fire, medical services, wildlife reservations, clean food, clean drinking water, clean air if it comes to it, etc.)


You tell me the system is broken, but at worst, I see a system that is sub-optimal.

The legislature has had abysmal approval ratings for decades. The "is the country going in the right direction or the wrong track" poll has been wrong track by a landslide since the beginning of polling time.

I hope you mean 1789, or thereabouts.

The government is absolutely a "they" entity.

That is your choice. Attend your community council meetings. Attend City Council meetings. Run for local office. Write your state legislators a letter. Schedule an appointment to meet with their staff, etc.
*sigh*
etc.

Every aspect of the U.S. government is a two party joke, all the way up to the SCOTUS, where practically every meaningful vote ever has been 5/4 based on whatever the party of the two-term president is.

Pros and cons. Two party hurts a third party, but what the parties stand for has swung 180 degrees over the years, so it's kind of a moot point to suggest that any particular ideology is excluded.

The only way you can say that we take part of the credit for the actions of the state is if you're making the (flawed) argument that since we aren't in open French Revolution-style revolt, then we're in tacit approval of what it does.

The only way? I am a verbose person.

Tacit approval? Doesn't sound very scientific.

[Renton]

Although, I think history has shown every day for 150,000 years that nothing needs to be perfect in order for societies to run. It just needs to be good enough.

Do I wish taxes were used more efficiently? Yes. Am I bothered by the fact that there are inefficiencies? No.

I present to you a situation where the state is taking 37% of the stuff by force, owning about as much of the land, and almost certainly not returning to the people a value anywhere remotely comparable to that, and your response is a flip dismissal of "inefficiencies." Obviously one need not be bothered by inefficiencies if they are small, which is your implication. They're not small, they're mammoth.

I'm not aware of the specific laws to which you refer.

My gut says:
Stifle a little growth vs. provide access to a slightly more robust infrastructure.
Surely there must be a balance.

Again with the diminutive language. How has the state earned the benefit of the doubt from you? Stilfling a lot of growth vs provide access to shitty, obsolescent infrastructure would be more accurate.

I agree there should be a balance. But taxing corporations and capital gains is extremely misguided. There are better ways for the state to make it's nut. Taxing employers is just an attempt at subterfuge, putting degrees of separation between a citizen and the tax burden. It's a very popular tax because people by and large do not understand how business works. They believe that a corporation will hire the same number of people at the same wage whether there's a 25% corporate tax or no tax at all.

Inflation is a tax?

I thought inflation was... idk... a weird consequence of the free market and burgeoning wealth.

Are you sure it's a tax? Which state's representatives proposed inflation? What year?
Did wufwugy take over your account, too?

Free market inflation 1) doesn't exist / never has existed and 2) wouldn't be a tax because it would be related to the amount of economic growth there is. In fact, it is quite likely the case that in an actual free monetary market that saving money in a shoebox would have a annual return.

The inflation we experience is a tax because the state controls if it happens and how much it happens. It also controls how much banks lend by arbitrarily setting interest rates to a level that is usually below what market would be. Then the state insures banks against runs or even bails them out completely with tax dollars when they fail. This creates a generally fucked up system where banks can take crazy risks that they would never dream of taking in a free market. A side effect is excessive inflation, which we all experience like a sales tax as we watch prices of goods in the economy continually increase.

I don't really see how taxes tie in to making sense of an economic system with complicated non-capital trade mixed in with capital trade. Taxes provide capital for non-capital goods. This is a part of the economy. To say that business or people do not receive benefit from taxes is not swaying me.

I really don't understand what you mean by this. Taxes provide capital for non-capital goods? Please elaborate.

I accept that some things for which we are taxed could be run better by private organizations, but I don't see why you feel that it's such a big deal.
(And I completely disagree on roads. Terrible idea. I'll pay taxes for roads, zoos, public parks, schools, libraries, police, fire, medical services, wildlife reservations, clean food, clean drinking water, clean air if it comes to it, etc.)

You tell me the system is broken, but at worst, I see a system that is sub-optimal.

I won't spend much time on what you put between the parentheses because that could take days. I will say that its interesting that things like zoos and libraries made it into the illustrious 13. Private sector can't cage wildlife and charge a buck for its view? The internet has already supplanted libraries. You seem to have a pretty large bias for what you believe only the state is capable of providing.

I feel it is a big deal because monopolies suck. Every time the state decrees that it and only it can provide a good or service to people, that sucks and should be avoided at all costs. We should be extremely particular with which services we subject to that restriction.

That is your choice. Attend your community council meetings. Attend City Council meetings. Run for local office. Write your state legislators a letter. Schedule an appointment to meet with their staff, etc.

Pros and cons. Two party hurts a third party, but what the parties stand for has swung 180 degrees over the years, so it's kind of a moot point to suggest that any particular ideology is excluded.

So since I'm not completely upending my life in an attempt to move one of the gigantic boulders of party lines a few millimeters, I have no right to complain?

[MadMojoMonkey]

I present to you a situation where the state is taking 37% of the stuff by force, owning about as much of the land, and almost certainly not returning to the people a value anywhere remotely comparable to that, and your response is a flip dismissal of "inefficiencies." Obviously one need not be bothered by inefficiencies if they are small, which is your implication. They're not small, they're mammoth.

I didn't mean to be flip. I kinda was, though. I grant you that. I'm trying to keep my frustration with wufwugy's use of language as a separate frustration in this conversation. I could have done better.

Did I misunderstand when you said 37% is too high, but still less than comparable European governments? I thought you were kinda tongue-in-cheek saying that your opinions on the size of that number needed context.

Context for the number means everything.
Why is 37% too high?
What is the target you prefer?

Again with the diminutive language. How has the state earned the benefit of the doubt from you? Stilfling a lot of growth vs provide access to shitty, obsolescent infrastructure would be more accurate.

Again with apologies, then. I'm sorry for any tone I had in my prior post. Thank you for continuing the conversation, despite my rudeness.

Why I give the state the benefit of the doubt:
I've met a lot of politicians, first of all. Those conversations have left me feeling a lot of respect for people who do a job that is damn near impossible, but whom do it nonetheless.

The government is composed of people. Those people are dedicated to their job and want to make things "better." They may be under-qualified to handle the immensity of the problems they want to solve. Still, they are trying to help.

You and I disagree on the function of government, a bit. If your system was the prevailing system, I would afford you the benefit of the doubt just the same. The system is too complex for me to pretend to know what's best. I am one person with highly eccentric views on a lot of topics. Why should I expect my ideas of society to mesh with the society as a whole?

Also, I have taken advantage of my right to receive unemployment benefits and "food stamps" (in quotes because the current name of the program doesn't reflect the nature of the program.) I was not trying to be a leach on society. I paid the taxes for those welfare benefits. They kept me afloat and fed for a while. Ultimately, taking those welfare services played a role in my choice to go back to college and get a degree in Physics. I do not need those services anymore.

***
I would need to see some data, in the appropriate context, to change my opinion as to the degree of bad that the 37% rate represents or the degree of good that the state of infrastructure represents.

I agree there should be a balance. But taxing corporations and capital gains is extremely misguided. There are better ways for the state to make it's nut. Taxing employers is just an attempt at subterfuge, putting degrees of separation between a citizen and the tax burden. It's a very popular tax because people by and large do not understand how business works. They believe that a corporation will hire the same number of people at the same wage whether there's a 25% corporate tax or no tax at all.

I couldn't agree more that the taxes should be taken once, and not over and over in multiple steps.

I mean sales tax OR income tas, OR corporate tax. Don't take taxes out of my money twice. Lump it all together into one chunk.
If you're taxing my employer, which is a tax on me, then get rid of the income tax AND the sales tax.*

I don't care if you still take the 37%, or whatever the number is. I just want to have the actual amount of taxes I'm paying to be transparent as a single line-item on my finances.

*disclaimer: I am not a trained economist, and this idea may be stupid for reasons I don't currently understand.

Free market inflation 1) doesn't exist / never has existed and 2) wouldn't be a tax because it would be related to the amount of economic growth there is. In fact, it is quite likely the case that in an actual free monetary market that saving money in a shoebox would have a annual return.

The inflation we experience is a tax because the state controls if it happens and how much it happens. It also controls how much banks lend by arbitrarily setting interest rates to a level that is usually below what market would be. Then the state insures banks against runs or even bails them out completely with tax dollars when they fail. This creates a generally fucked up system where banks can take crazy risks that they would never dream of taking in a free market. A side effect is excessive inflation, which we all experience like a sales tax as we watch prices of goods in the economy continually increase.

Ugh. It's not a tax. This is misleading use of language. It is like a tax in some ways, but it is not a tax.

Why is maintaining a certain rate of inflation considered to be a net gain?

***
For the record, that bailout was paid back in full, with interest. It played out like a government loan. It was a dangerous gamble on the part of the gov't, maybe. It worked out in the end.
I think too big to fail is too big to allow, personally. (taken from a protest sign, but I like it.)

I really don't understand what you mean by this. Taxes provide capital for non-capital goods? Please elaborate.

Taxes are capital. I think I can let that slide w/o further explanation.

The non-capital goods are things like: The public availability of transportation means that a company can hire from a wider pool of potential employees. These employees are willing to travel longer/further to their job because the difficulty/time to do so is lessened. This allows the employer to select the best potential employees from a larger pool. Statistically, this means the employer has access to higher quality personnel. However, it's a non-quantified advantage.

Things like: the FDA minimum standards on food safety. This means the average health of employees (and employers) is increased a non-quantified amount due to a lack of sick-days and other illness related work-slowages.

I won't spend much time on what you put between the parentheses because that could take days. I will say that its interesting that things like zoos and libraries made it into the illustrious 13. Private sector can't cage wildlife and charge a buck for its view? The internet has already supplanted libraries. You seem to have a pretty large bias for what you believe only the state is capable of providing.

Zoos make the list only if they're free to the public to enter, like the St. Louis Zoo. I feel the net cultural public good from having parks and museums open to the public far outweighs the cost. If these services are provided through grants or non-governmental funding, then that's grand. If they're not, then I support the government stepping in and ensuring public access to the artifacts of history / wonders of the natural world. Fostering inquisitiveness seems like a huge net benefit to the society (in my biased opinion).

This is a complicated view I hold whereby the notion of private property is abused a bit. I am aware of the dissonance.
It stems from this: Who can own the Mona Lisa?
For me, there is an argument that says the seminal works of human creativity belong to all the humans (after a suitable amount of time after the creator has died / themselves and/or their family profit from the work, etc.).

I accept that the internet is replacing libraries. As such, I am a proponent of net neutrality. It is looking more and more like the corporate world is going to fail to recognize this is linked to the right to "free and open access to information."

***
The best point here is the, "only the state is capable of providing," bit.

Which bring up the question:
Why (historically) are services provided for by taxation?
Why are the specific services offered by the current regime?
Which of these motivations has since been solved in a different manner?

I'd like to further explore this line of thought.

I feel it is a big deal because monopolies suck. Every time the state decrees that it and only it can provide a good or service to people, that sucks and should be avoided at all costs. We should be extremely particular with which services we subject to that restriction.

Agreed.

So since I'm not completely upending my life in an attempt to move one of the gigantic boulders of party lines a few millimeters, I have no right to complain?

Of course, you have the right to free speech. I'm certain you know that I respect your right to express yourself however you see fit. (Accepting that you don't hurt anyone but maybe yourself.)

However, your choice to criticize from the sidelines rather than get involved says something about the perceived amount of passion you express vs. the actual amount of passion you are willing to commit to.

[Renton]

I didn't mean to be flip. I kinda was, though. I grant you that. I'm trying to keep my frustration with wufwugy's use of language as a separate frustration in this conversation. I could have done better.

Did I misunderstand when you said 37% is too high, but still less than comparable European governments? I thought you were kinda tongue-in-cheek saying that your opinions on the size of that number needed context.

Context for the number means everything.
Why is 37% too high?
What is the target you prefer?

I believe 6 trillion dollars is an unbelievable amount of money to take out of only 300 million people's pockets. I brought up the point that its low compared to western euro nations only to show how gross those nations are, not to make the U.S. look good. To be fair to them, they are at least providing a much more comprehensive welfare state. The U.S. just spends the money on weapons and bureaucracies.

The government is composed of people. Those people are dedicated to their job and want to make things "better." They may be under-qualified to handle the immensity of the problems they want to solve. Still, they are trying to help.

You and I disagree on the function of government, a bit. If your system was the prevailing system, I would afford you the benefit of the doubt just the same. The system is too complex for me to pretend to know what's best. I am one person with highly eccentric views on a lot of topics. Why should I expect my ideas of society to mesh with the society as a whole?

Also, I have taken advantage of my right to receive unemployment benefits and "food stamps" (in quotes because the current name of the program doesn't reflect the nature of the program.) I was not trying to be a leach on society. I paid the taxes for those welfare benefits. They kept me afloat and fed for a while. Ultimately, taking those welfare services played a role in my choice to go back to college and get a degree in Physics. I do not need those services anymore.

***
I would need to see some data, in the appropriate context, to change my opinion as to the degree of bad that the 37% rate represents or the degree of good that the state of infrastructure represents.

The largest share of the money, about 1/3 and growing, goes to an ineffective healthcare program. Maybe the ACA will improve on that, but medicare has been an unmitigated disaster. It's way too expensive for the limited amount of benefit it provides. It's also going to ruin the budget more and more every year now that baby boomers are dying off.

The stuff you like about the U.S. government is actually a pretty small percentage of the budget. Welfare benefits for poor people are like 15%. Transportation is 4%. "Defense" is about 15%. Yes, the U.S. spends a comparable amount of money on maintaining unnecessary military bases and building defunct warplanes to what it spends on the poor.

Education is another noble cause that is killing the budget. Education is primarily funded at the state level, and a lot of states are struggling to pay for it, with CA and IL notably being in pretty fucked shape. And for all of the expenditure, the U.S. scores abysmally in education stats compared with other developed countries.

Ugh. It's not a tax. This is misleading use of language. It is like a tax in some ways, but it is not a tax.

Why is maintaining a certain rate of inflation considered to be a net gain?

The state prints money to pay for things, then we have to pay more for products. It's like a sales tax, only worse because at least you can dodge sales tax by not buying anything. Excessive inflation perverts incentives by discouraging people from saving (generally a good, prudent habit). There's nothing to be gained by "maintaining" any rate of inflation. The act of controlling it centrally is exactly the problem. Inflation or deflation is fine if its market-based, because that means it comes as a result of voluntary exchange. It's not fake.

Taxes are capital. I think I can let that slide w/o further explanation.


The non-capital goods are things like: The public availability of transportation means that a company can hire from a wider pool of potential employees. These employees are willing to travel longer/further to their job because the difficulty/time to do so is lessened. This allows the employer to select the best potential employees from a larger pool. Statistically, this means the employer has access to higher quality personnel. However, it's a non-quantified advantage.

Taxes are not capital. Capital is defined in wikipedia as a "type of good that can be consumed now, but if consumption is deferred an increased supply of consumable goods is likely to be available later." In other words, capital is property that can be used to create or facilitate the creation of new property. A hammer is capital. A printer is capital. A person's skillset is human capital. Money, if invested and earning a return, is capital. You could argue that the infrastructure built by the state or the education granted to children in public schools are both forms of capital that the state builds. Very little of what the state does increases capital, and much of what it does actually destroys capital. For example, corporate taxes and capital gains taxes are directly destructive to capital. The defense budget is destructive except for the rare cases that it results in new technology. The police budget is mostly destructive, since the vast majority of it's resources are spent prosecuting and subsequently jailing non-violent people.

I don't doubt there are benefits to the non-capital stuff you mention in the quoted paragraph, but it's hard to believe that the value of them compare with the outright destructive things the U.S. government is doing with your money.

Things like: the FDA minimum standards on food safety. This means the average health of employees (and employers) is increased a non-quantified amount due to a lack of sick-days and other illness related work-slowages.

The FDA could also be blamed for millions of needless deaths due to the unbelievably slow and expensive process it takes to approve pharmaceuticals. Economic analysis requires considering unseen factors like this. The vast majority of the food supplied in the U.S. comes from large corporations with a lot to lose. It is not worth it for them to produce dangerous products and suffer the backlash that comes with making someone sick. The gains from FDA approval are minor at best, and again, we pay dearly for those gains.

The best point here is the, "only the state is capable of providing," bit.

Which bring up the question:
Why (historically) are services provided for by taxation?
Why are the specific services offered by the current regime?
Which of these motivations has since been solved in a different manner?

I'd like to further explore this line of thought.

1. Because there's no other way to provide a service to someone against his will than to expropriate him and take away his other choices.

2. Inertia. It seemed like a good idea for the government to provide the services hundreds of years ago, and the institutions have stuck. As I mentioned earlier in the thread. The government adds and adds, but it very rarely subtracts.

3. I'm not sure I understand the question. In theory the government seeks to provide mandatory services whenever the services are difficult to exclude. This is called the free rider problem. At one extreme is a product like pizza, which can easily be handed to some people and not others. At the other extreme is border defense, in which everyone benefits from it whether they contribut or not. Basically the less excludable the service, the more necessary it is believed that government should necessarily provide it.

The other motivations for government programs are largely patronizing. Pension programs are an example of this. If you approached each American and offered to allow him to opt out of S.S. and Medicare, and thus to not have to pay the SS and FICA taxes, 95% would snap accept. Now this could be argued that people are subjectively valuing money now over money 40 years from now. But proponents of SS/Medicare believe that human beings are frail and must be compelled to consider their futures because they are incapable of doing so on their own. This type of nanny logic is responsible for a huge amount of prevailing policy in the United States.