Maastricht Treaty revisions needed?

[eppie]

I would define one kind of liberty (economic liberty) as the ratio of how much of your earnings you are allowed to keep.

That ratio is completely meaningless. If they give me 100.000 euro per day, and I have to give back 99% in taxes I am still very happy.....well that is if a loaf a bread doesn't cost 500 euro of course.
The amount of taxes based on income or possesion is a much better standard.
If you have people working at McDonalds, paying the same % of taxes as some top-end lawyer, I think you have a problem with liberty.
If it makes a huge difference where you were born you have a problem with liberty (not so many kids from teh ghetto going to Harvard).

If you are just fair, you must admit the liberties in Denmark are much greater than those in Minnesota.

Ps. your comments about government controlled schools.
I read in an article that dutch daycare centres are mainly owned by big companies......foreign investment vehicles take care of the babies and toddlers of common dutch people.....too me that is a far more scary thing than government owned schools.

[kandrathe]

If they give me 100.000 euro per day, and I have to give back 99% in taxes I am still very happy.....well that is if a loaf a bread doesn't cost 500 euro of course.

Do you know anyone who earns that much? If not, then your observation is pretty ludicrous. If you are worth 100,000 Euro per day, and only get paid 1000, then you'll eventually go to where you can get paid what you are worth. If you earn an average wage in the Netherlands, let's say 2,800 Euro per month (17.5 Euro per hour), then if the government takes 45% you'd be left with about $1540 (about $9.63 Euro per hour). So, is your time worth the higher wage, or not. Then a the highly taxed Netherlander, I'd ask myself, what is my return on my investment of about 1/2 my days labor. What it means is that you have about 1/2 the economic power you had before the government took its share away from you.

The amount of taxes based on income or possession is a much better standard. If you have people working at McDonalds, paying the same % of taxes as some top-end lawyer, I think you have a problem with liberty.

Actually, I wouldn't tax income at all. I would push all taxation back into product consumption. But, a flat tax is also fair. If every consumer of services pays the same ratio, then you have equal interest in keeping taxes as low as possible. The situation we have now in the US (maybe there as well), is that the lower half of the electorate pays very little, thus ensuring that any restructuring of taxation whereby that half pays more will be defeated. The minority of tax payers (the most productive) can do little against the majority who garner most of the benefits.

If it makes a huge difference where you were born you have a problem with liberty (not so many kids from the ghetto going to Harvard).

There is a problem with that too, but it is a matter exacerbated by socialism. How do we disrupt the cycle of multi-generational poor, when socialism pays them to stay in the ghetto? Everyone qualifies equally for financial aid, so if a student from the ghetto earns good grades, and does well on entrance exams, then why should they not go to Harvard (with adequate financial aid, and scholarships)?

If you are just fair, you must admit the liberties in Denmark are much greater than those in Minnesota.

Which liberties? I observe that the Scandinavian countries generally have more open markets, lower levels of business regulation, sound currencies, and honest governments. Their laissez-faire approach to non-fiscal policy is probably responsible for their relatively high prosperity. Really the only detractors for Denmark, in an economic freedom sense, are their high levels of taxation and government spending.

Ps. your comments about government controlled schools. I read in an article that dutch daycare centres are mainly owned by big companies......foreign investment vehicles take care of the babies and toddlers of common dutch people.....too me that is a far more scary thing than government owned schools.

Really, not very scary, as long as there are regulations on what constitutes proper care. Oh, and Madrasah are not child care. There was a case here recently where a women who ran an in home daycare was tossed in jail after a toddler strangled on a seat belt. She was in violation of the regulation on the number of infants she was taking care of at one time (her other worker, her mother, ran to the store to get some supplies for the daycare). I felt pity that she was sent to jail, but then, without consequences, the laws would be meaningless.

[Jester]

If you earn an average wage in the Netherlands, let's say 2,800 Euro per month (17.5 Euro per hour), then if the government takes 45% you'd be left with about $1540 (about $9.63 Euro per hour). So, is your time worth the higher wage, or not. Then a the highly taxed Netherlander, I'd ask myself, what is my return on my investment of about 1/2 my days labor. What it means is that you have about 1/2 the economic power you had before the government took its share away from you.

Pre-tax income is not context-free, and therefore is a very poor indicator of "economic power." It's not the amount you would earn, if only that meddling government didn't take anything away. It's an amount that includes both the expectation of taxation, and the productivity benefits of everything the government provides. Think of how much less people would be able to produce in the absence of roads, of defense, of a functional system of policing and laws. Now add the benefits of free education, health care, and so on. All of that increases productivity, and therefore wages, leading to a much higher level of pre-tax income.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

Pre-tax income is not context-free, and therefore is a very poor indicator of "economic power." It's not the amount you would earn, if only that meddling government didn't take anything away.

Reminds me of another other odd thing people think. While they seem perfectly happy to be earning ten times what they did when they first started working, they become very upset that the prices for everything has gone up by that same ten times.

It's an amount that includes both the expectation of taxation, and the productivity benefits of everything the government provides. Think of how much less people would be able to produce in the absence of roads, of defense, of a functional system of policing and laws. Now add the benefits of free education, health care, and so on. All of that increases productivity, and therefore wages, leading to a much higher level of pre-tax income.

While true, this does take us back to the questions of just what are governmental functions and how inefficient is the government. The idea that, no matter how cheaply you can get something, it's not a bargain if you don't want it, comes into play. I believe that kandrathe has made his position pretty clear. He wants the government to do only the barest minimum. And even that minimum, he wants done at the most local level possible. Roads, water, sewer, gas, electric, education, medical care, etc. can all be sold at a profit, and so he wants to keep the government completely out of them.

There are, however, two aspects that need to be considered. The first is, will it cost me more to have x furnished by the government than it would in a competitive market (and all the assumptions that carries). I think the answer to that is almost always 'yes'. Even if the efficiency of the government and of industry were the same, the government has the additional overhead of collecting, budgeting, and distributing taxes.

The second aspect is, who supplies the safety net (which comes with a whole raft of assumptions also). Who pays for the insurance? Who pays for the education? And many others along these lines. If everybody were intelligent, reasonable, capable, foresighted, in short, Jeffersonian, then each would take care of himself. But that is a fantasy. Combined with the almost total disappearance of the extended family, who takes care of those who didn't take care of themselves --whether through their own fault or not. Or do we (society) let them rot?

And, so, we go around the circle one more time.

--Pete

[Jester]

I believe that kandrathe has made his position pretty clear. He wants the government to do only the barest minimum. And even that minimum, he wants done at the most local level possible. Roads, water, sewer, gas, electric, education, medical care, etc. can all be sold at a profit, and so he wants to keep the government completely out of them.

Fine and good. But if the people of Denmark woke up tomorrow with a government that abandoned all its social functions, and devolved to the least possible activity at the lowest level, it would also be unreasonable to expect wages to remain as high as they are. They would drop dramatically in response to the sudden withdrawal of services. Now, how much that would be compensated for by lower prices and lower taxes is an open question. Maybe the trade-off would be worth it, maybe it wouldn't. But you certainly can't just look at current wages as a reliable guide, then mentally subtract the tax income. It doesn't work that way.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

Fine and good. But if the people of Denmark woke up tomorrow with a government that abandoned all its social functions, and devolved to the least possible activity at the lowest level, it would also be unreasonable to expect wages to remain as high as they are. They would drop dramatically in response to the sudden withdrawal of services. Now, how much that would be compensated for by lower prices and lower taxes is an open question. Maybe the trade-off would be worth it, maybe it wouldn't. But you certainly can't just look at current wages as a reliable guide, then mentally subtract the tax income. It doesn't work that way.

Whoa! A sudden, overnight change like that would indeed destroy the economy, if not the nation. That's not evolution, that's a big meteor smacking down. But that's not the issue. The comparison would have to be between two similar (OK, this is all hypothetical, so make that 'identical') countries, one of which is like Denmark, the other (call it Dendollar) has all the same services but they are supplied for a price by private companies. I don't see why the source of the infrastructure would have an effect on wages as long as the infrastructure is there.

The problem with Dendollar isn't that the services are not available, it's that they are not available to everyone. That may or may not really matter in an absolute sense. It is a social issue. The government overhead is the price society pays for being 'nice'.

--Pete

[eppie]

Do you know anyone who earns that much? If not, then your observation is pretty ludicrous. If you are worth 100,000 Euro per day, and only get paid 1000, then you'll eventually go to where you can get paid what you are worth. If you earn an average wage in the Netherlands, let's say 2,800 Euro per month (17.5 Euro per hour), then if the government takes 45% you'd be left with about $1540 (about $9.63 Euro per hour). So, is your time worth the higher wage, or not. Then a the highly taxed Netherlander, I'd ask myself, what is my return on my investment of about 1/2 my days labor. What it means is that you have about 1/2 the economic power you had before the government took its share away from you.

But did you think the average wage would be the same if taxes were 20 %? Of course not, it would be much lower.

[eppie]

Hi,

While true, this does take us back to the questions of just what are governmental functions and how inefficient is the government. The idea that, no matter how cheaply you can get something, it's not a bargain if you don't want it, comes into play. I believe that kandrathe has made his position pretty clear. He wants the government to do only the barest minimum. And even that minimum, he wants done at the most local level possible. Roads, water, sewer, gas, electric, education, medical care, etc. can all be sold at a profit, and so he wants to keep the government completely out of them.

Yes, and a perfectly working communist state is more likely than this.

There are, however, two aspects that need to be considered. The first is, will it cost me more to have x furnished by the government than it would in a competitive market (and all the assumptions that carries). I think the answer to that is almost always 'yes'. Even if the efficiency of the government and of industry were the same, the government has the additional overhead of collecting, budgeting, and distributing taxes.

But this is not the most important thing. What we need is stability. Economic fluctuations because of market issues let alone a crisis cause an enormous amount of damage to the economy. Especially in a country like the US (with so many resources and land area) the state could arrange things a lot better.....not cheaper but better in the sense that people could be happier, less stressed etc.
In a country like the Netherlands I don't want a foreign company to own our electricity, gas and water companies (which is partly so already at this moment......ok they are fellow europeans but still. Why spend billions on the army when all an enemy needs to do to is to shut off the border and flip a efw switches. If I pay a government money for the gas I use, I know teh money goes to the government, so back to the people. I much rather have 10 people working the job of 7 then a few foreign share holder to become rich.....even though it costs me a bit more.
I'd rather have 10 people working a bit less hard then 7 working very hard and 3 without a job. The first situation is much better for the economy......and it doesn't even have to be like that......a good manager can make the government 'companies' just as efficient as private ones....and as an added benefit we don't have to see all those commercials of the electra companies on TV.

Another problem is that private companies work with short term goals.....and things like selling the company might be one such goal.
If you say you want to regulate private companies that provide important services (schooling, food, electra, roads) like kandrathe points out often.....you end up with a lot larger group of government employees pushing paper.

In sweden much more things are still arranged on government level and I must say it is a much better situation here than in Holland. On top of that, sweden is more competitive in international business as well.....and I actually think we pay less tax than in Holland.

The second aspect is, who supplies the safety net (which comes with a whole raft of assumptions also). Who pays for the insurance? Who pays for the education? And many others along these lines. If everybody were intelligent, reasonable, capable, foresighted, in short, Jeffersonian, then each would take care of himself. But that is a fantasy. Combined with the almost total disappearance of the extended family, who takes care of those who didn't take care of themselves --whether through their own fault or not. Or do we (society) let them rot?

And, so, we go around the circle one more time.

--Pete

Indeed....and this is the biggest thing I have against Kandrathe's view. It is just not in the nature of people to make a society like he advocates work

[--Pete]

Hi,

Yes, and a perfectly working communist state is more likely than this.

An elf riding a unicorn across my back yard is more likely than that.

But this is not the most important thing. What we need is . . .
. . . a good manager can make the government 'companies' just as efficient as private ones . . .

No. Because the private company takes the money directly. The government taxes at an organizational level higher than those supplying the service. The items I mentioned (collecting, budgeting, and dispersing the money) all cost something. For the government to supply the service at the same price, it would have to be more efficient than the private company because it has (and has to have) more levels. Besides the probability of elves on unicorns, there is the fact that I stipulated the two were operating at equal efficiency.

Aside from that, I was not recommending or defending anything in my statement.

It is just not in the nature of people to make a society like he advocates work

What I find humorous is that both extreme socialism and extreme capitalism require the same kind of population to work. In both cases, you must have people that are willing to work for the common good with no thought to personal rewards. Communism fails because people will not work without personal reward. Capitalism fails because people will only work for personal rewards.

As is so often the case, the solution lies somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately, many of these things are like a pendulum. They spend most of their time at one extreme or other until everything comes to a stop. Then they reverse, and head to the opposite extreme, passing the reasonable middle with the greatest rapidity. And, as each cycle is repeated, the only lesson learned is that nothing is ever learned.

Bah! I need another pain pill

--Pete

[eppie]

No. Because the private company takes the money directly. The government taxes at an organizational level higher than those supplying the service. The items I mentioned (collecting, budgeting, and dispersing the money) all cost something. For the government to supply the service at the same price, it would have to be more efficient than the private company because it has (and has to have) more levels. Besides the probability of elves on unicorns, there is the fact that I stipulated the two were operating at equal efficiency.
--Pete

Of course, the costs of goods will be a bit higher for the consumer....unless the government want to subsidize something. (e.g. public transport to make people use their cars less).
Anyway, I don't care too much about this 'loss of efficiency' I was more talking about lots of people not doing anything in government jobs (Italy is a great example of this).

Later I also mentioned that when you let private parties arrange important things like health care, schools or energy, you need government regulation anyway.....and this is also a lot of work....probably even compensating the loss of effiency because of the extra levels in the finance dept. you mentioned.

Anyway, I am not advocating communism here....I just used to try to show the impossibility of a system described by kandrathe.

[kandrathe]

Pre-tax income is not context-free, and therefore is a very poor indicator of "economic power." It's not the amount you would earn, if only that meddling government didn't take anything away. It's an amount that includes both the expectation of taxation, and the productivity benefits of everything the government provides. Think of how much less people would be able to produce in the absence of roads, of defense, of a functional system of policing and laws. Now add the benefits of free education, health care, and so on. All of that increases productivity, and therefore wages, leading to a much higher level of pre-tax income.

Actually, I believe the government's meddling actually harms our society. Consider roads; When in the control of the State, the people just demand more and get them, then more lane miles are available and need to be maintained making room for more cars. Conversely, if the pain of tolls were added to commuting, then people may change their consumer behavior more readily and walk, or bike to work. Consider schools; When the government and the teachers unions control the outcomes, the actual consumer is left out of the loop. As parents, we do not get much of an influence in the quality of the school our child attends. If the local school had to earn my loyalty (and dollars), I would be much more involved in ensuring it provided a quality education for my children. But, again, I don't have a problem with the government leading, and setting standards for what constitutes a basic education, however, they do an abysmal job at creating efficient systems with high quality outputs.

---

But did you think the average wage would be the same if taxes were 20 %? Of course not, it would be much lower.

This may shock you. I've hired people at a wage higher than they've asked for, and I've given raises well above 15% when necessary. I believe a smart employer values their "human capital". When I've spent many years investing in the training of an employee, and find they are the perfect fit for an skill set that is hard to replace, then there is great incentive to reasonably "over pay" for that position. I've worked for manufacturing firms that pay their non-union labor at 150% of union scale.

So no. If taxes go down, wages do not go down. Employers calculate and compete at the gross wages level, and not take home pay. In the professions I deal with, wages are well over a "living wage", so any additional money is merely wealth that they have earned.

[ShadowHM]

If the local school had to earn my loyalty (and dollars), I would be much more involved in ensuring it provided a quality education for my children.

I am a bit stunned by this comment. I live in a place where there is a government mandated curriculum that must be followed by all schools, public and private. I get the public school for free, so my husband and I decided that the extra dollars we saved by having such a system were best spent in ensuring that the public system did, in fact, provide the quality education we wanted. I have been extremely active, over the years, in the parent council for the schools and in doing volunteer work within the schools that my children have attended.

Your statement implies that, since your public system was free, you have declined to spend energy to work with those who deliver the education. (Maybe you think that if you only pay up with tax dollars you don't get to have input?)

But, again, I don't have a problem with the government leading, and setting standards for what constitutes a basic education, however, they do an abysmal job at creating efficient systems with high quality outputs.

I am sorry to hear that your jurisdiction has failed you. However, please don't presume to draw conclusions about all jurisdictions from your own (apparently) limited experience.

<---goes back to lurking and learning

[kandrathe]

I am a bit stunned by this comment. I live in a place where there is a government mandated curriculum that must be followed by all schools, public and private. I get the public school for free, so my husband and I decided that the extra dollars we saved by having such a system were best spent in ensuring that the public system did, in fact, provide the quality education we wanted. I have been extremely active, over the years, in the parent council for the schools and in doing volunteer work within the schools that my children have attended.

You are reading too much into my statement. I do believe in contributing to your community. And, yes, I do what I can to help out the school, now that my kids attend, but I really didn't before I had kids. And, unless there is some in my face reason to help after they move on, I doubt I will remain involved. Education here is 10% higher per child than the state average, and are still always short of funds. But, they have a state of the art sports complex. Olympic quality swimming pools in the high school, and every middle school has at least one pool as well. I feel the problem with our public schools is a vastly inefficient use of funding. Our teachers should be employed all year, at a decent wage, but we should cut out much of the administration and most of the non-academic pursuits. There are too many non-academic programs that siphon money out of the main purpose for having the school in the first place.

Your statement implies that, since your public system was free, you have declined to spend energy to work with those who deliver the education. (Maybe you think that if you only pay up with tax dollars you don't get to have input?)

Yeah, pretty much that is a correct statement. Not only am I not motivated to contribute to a bloated mismanagement of resources, often us "volunteers" are not really very welcome. The professionals make it pretty clear where they want our involvement and contributions.

I am sorry to hear that your jurisdiction has failed you. However, please don't presume to draw conclusions about all jurisdictions from your own (apparently) limited experience.

I've experienced more than a few jurisdictions, and I don't think I incorrectly project it to at least what is happening in the US. Much like our health care, at least where I live, we get adequate educational services, at a tremendously high cost. My work with colleges and universities reveals that the bulk of the incoming students are unprepared. So, no, the system is not working, and is only getting worse year after year. Check out the US math and science scores compared to the rest of the world (even the poorer nations). Imagine what they might do with $7000 per student per year. PISA Canada was #2, after Finland. The US is on par with Croatia.

[Jester]

Actually, I believe the government's meddling actually harms our society.

Compared to what? A society with no government? Surely not. As Pete rightly says, the question is where government intervention ceases to be beneficial, and instead becomes meddling. The first dollars spent on defense, policing and laws are surely worth spending - societies without that are hellholes. The question is - where after that do you stop?

This may shock you. I've hired people at a wage higher than they've asked for, and I've given raises well above 15% when necessary. I believe a smart employer values their "human capital". When I've spent many years investing in the training of an employee, and find they are the perfect fit for an skill set that is hard to replace, then there is great incentive to reasonably "over pay" for that position. I've worked for manufacturing firms that pay their non-union labor at 150% of union scale.

Two possibilities.

1) You are a rational employer, paying "extra" to buy "extras" - a quality employee who will remain loyal. So you are in no sense paying higher wages than necessary, you are paying the wages necessary to secure the quality of employee you want, and prevent poaching.

2) You are a very strange kind of altruist, who specifically looks out for the interests of high-quality employees.

I know which one seems more reasonable to me.

So no. If taxes go down, wages do not go down. Employers calculate and compete at the gross wages level, and not take home pay. In the professions I deal with, wages are well over a "living wage", so any additional money is merely wealth that they have earned.

Again, you fixate on one side of the price equation, and not the other. Supply is one half - what the employer decides they want to pay. Demand is the other - what the employee is willing to work for. Employers are concerned about the gross pay, because that's what comes out of their pockets. But employees are concerned about the net pay, because that's what ends up in their bank account. A lower-tax environment means employees take home more of their paycheque. They should, therefore, be willing to accept less gross income to produce the same net income.

Now, if government and private business are exact substitutes, and people buy the exact same services they previously paid for with tax dollars, they're going to demand net income to match their new expenses, which should raise wages right back up to where they were.

The question is, then, is the government providing bargains, or not? That is a very difficult question. In some sectors, surely. In others, surely not. Where that balance lies, we'll need a lot of evidence to know.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

Employers are concerned about the gross pay, because that's what comes out of their pockets. But employees are concerned about the net pay, because that's what ends up in their bank account.

If by gross pay, you mean pre tax pay, then you're leaving out some things. Employers also pay other things which are not part of an employee's wages. These include (in the USA) social security, unemployment, and a few others. Also, many employers pay for health care, and some for other services, such as child care. These hidden costs can double an employee's cost to his employer. Indeed, one company I worked for routinely forced its employees to work maximum overtime. That way, they could get get three employee's labor out of two. The time-and-a-half and double-time pay was cheaper than paying the benefits for another employee.

Slightly less important, but along the same lines; if by net pay you mean after tax pay, again you are leaving some things out. Because neither the company retirement plan nor social security will permit a comfortable retirement, many employees have a portion of their earnings withheld for a private retirement plan. Many companies require a contribution for health insurance for dependents. And, in many cases, people have to pay union dues (although they do not have to join the union).

So, the situation is more complex than tax or no tax. If the government supplies complete medical services, and the cost is covered by what the employers paid for health insurance plus the employee contributions, then the net cost, to both employees and employers is zero. The employer moves some money from 'medical' to 'taxes' and the employee does the same. Thus, the argument devolves into one not of how much is taken, but of what it is labeled.

--Pete

[Jester]

Thus, the argument devolves into one not of how much is taken, but of what it is labeled.

What we need is a big ledger, showing the flow of money in its entirety. You're right, things like payroll deductions, employer matching, etc... are not necessarily included.

For the employer, the issue is the gross amount they pay out (not necessarily the gross amount that appears on the paycheque) and the issue for the employee is the compensation they receive for their employment (not necessarily the net amount they pocket after taxes). And that would have to include every kind of deduction and expenditure, regardless of its source.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

And, yes, I do what I can to help out the school, now that my kids attend, but I really didn't before I had kids. And, unless there is some in my face reason to help after they move on, I doubt I will remain involved.

And there lies the root of the problem. You have repeatedly claimed that you are an involved, responsible citizen, and I have no reason to doubt you. And yet, even you do not wish to be involved with the school system except during the time it benefits you directly. Judging from their actions, most people are apathetic and irresponsible (look at voter turnout numbers). Do you really think we can run a school system, or anything else, for the whole population on the basis of the contributions of the responsible minority for the period they are benefiting?

Aside from that, I mostly agree with your assessment of the educational system of the USA. It's like the ranks of the Prussian army: first, there's sports. Then there are extra-curriculum activities. Then, for a long way, there is nothing. There are exceptions, but I think the international comparisons speak for themselves. What I disagree with is that this is caused by the government running our schools. Many of the countries that do a much better job of educating their children do so in schools totally supported and run by the government. Indeed, I think that most of the fault with our schools is allowing the parents too much input. The parents enjoy the football games, the marching bands, the plays and musicals. They don't get as much out of algebra and Latin. So the funding follows the passions of the parents rather than the need of the students.

--Pete

[Taelas]

But did you think the average wage would be the same if taxes were 20 %? Of course not, it would be much lower.

This may shock you. I've hired people at a wage higher than they've asked for, and I've given raises well above 15% when necessary. I believe a smart employer values their "human capital". When I've spent many years investing in the training of an employee, and find they are the perfect fit for an skill set that is hard to replace, then there is great incentive to reasonably "over pay" for that position. I've worked for manufacturing firms that pay their non-union labor at 150% of union scale.

So no. If taxes go down, wages do not go down. Employers calculate and compete at the gross wages level, and not take home pay. In the professions I deal with, wages are well over a "living wage", so any additional money is merely wealth that they have earned.

Where's Penn & Teller when you need them?

No shit employers "compete at the gross wage level", that's the wage they have to pay! What is being said is that they don't exist in a vacuum. You do not calculate wages without taking into account taxes.

Yes, if you have country X and country Z, with equal wages, but only country X have taxes, citizens from country Z will have more disposable income.

What you're ignoring is that they will also have more things to spend money on. Education, road maintenance, health care, elder care -- all those things paying taxes address.

We don't pay taxes because governments are greedy people who are just out to get you and make you into a wage-slave; we pay taxes because we get something in return.

Yes, often enough a lot of the taxes you pay do not affect you personally at the moment you pay them, but that's the nature of the system. If you only paid for what you personally needed, the system couldn't exist; there wouldn't be money enough to keep it running. The government's job is to decide where and what to spend your taxes on, and if they're not doing it right, you kick them out and get someone new.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Where's Penn & Teller when you need them?

Down the road, teasing tigers.

No shit employers "compete at the gross wage level", that's the wage they have to pay! What is being said is that they don't exist in a vacuum. You do not calculate wages without taking into account taxes.

Yes, if you have country X and country Z, with equal wages, but only country X have taxes, citizens from country Z will have more disposable income.

What you're ignoring is that they will also have more things to spend money on. Education, road maintenance, health care, elder care -- all those things paying taxes address.

I believe opposing council would drag himself to his feet and say, "Asked and answered."

We don't pay taxes because governments are greedy people who are just out to get you and make you into a wage-slave; we pay taxes because we get something in return.

I don't think anyone here is denying that. The question is whether what you are getting in return is worth what you are paying the government to give it you, or if the free enterprise system could do it better. An associated, but slightly different question is, if government is the best supplier of a service, at what level of government should that service be supplied.

Yes, often enough a lot of the taxes you pay do not affect you personally at the moment you pay them, but that's the nature of the system. If you only paid for what you personally needed, the system couldn't exist; there wouldn't be money enough to keep it running.

That doesn't make sense. The cost to supply a service is the same, independent of who pays for it. The need for that service, also. Thus, if each person payed for the service he received, it would come out to exactly the same as if the population as a whole shared the cost. It is not a matter of income.

It is not a matter of "there wouldn't be money enough to keep it running", it is a matter of the individuals not being able to pay for the service that they, individually, need. And that hurts everybody. Let me give you a personal example.

The treatment for my leukemia has run to, approximately, one and a half million dollars. I have nowhere near that amount of money. But I do have insurance. Now, insurance is basically a large group of people, each betting against himself. The 'winners' get the money. It allows people to get medical treatment that they could otherwise not afford. But it does a lot more than that. The treatment I received was not handed down from on high. It had to be developed. If, of all the people who came down with leukemia, only those that could afford millions could be treated, then there wouldn't have been enough people or money to develop the treatment. So, insurance saved my life two ways. It made it possible for me to get the treatment, and it made developing the treatment possible in the first place.

Now, my example, repeated many times, is a good argument for insurance. But who should supply that insurance? And should we *have* to buy it? Should we have the complete freedom to chose? And what should society do with those who chose not to and then need the services? Is it right to demand that everyone should be insured because everyone shares the cost for those who are not? Is it socially acceptable to allow those who chose not to have insurance to 'pay' for their stupidity -- should we just let them die? If everyone has to have insurance, is it better supplied by the free market, or by the government? If by the government, should it be federal, state, county, other (some kind of special districting)? If the government is supplying everyone with insurance, do we need insurance at all, or should we just socialize the health industry?

Now, take all of that, and think of education, roads, police, fire, retirement, the military, etc., etc.

Your arguments are, at best, shades of gray. The problem covers the complete color spectrum.

The government's job is to decide where and what to spend your taxes on, and if they're not doing it right, you kick them out and get someone new.

"The government's job" is precisely what this discussion is about. Once that's determined, then the cost to run the country is established. That, in turn (and the government's position on deficit) determines what taxes are needed and where they are spent.

As to kicking them out, who determines if they are doing it right? Indeed, what is 'right'? Is it the will of the people? That's mob rule. Is it some higher good? That's elitism or theocracy, depending on whether you take 'higher' straight or with branch water. And how do you kick them out? Popular vote? It has been shown, over and over again, that the popular vote is usually bought by whoever spends the most. Insurrection? You'd better have the numbers, 'cause they have the amps.

"Every real problem has a simple, easy to understand, wrong answer."

--Pete

[Jim]

Hi,

Where's Penn & Teller when you need them?

Down the road, teasing tigers.

--Pete

Hi,

I can contribute here:

Siegfried and Roy are teasing tigers.

Penn and Teller make them disappear.
Alliera wishes they could make taxes disappear also.