Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

[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.