Should the government be smaller?

[Still Growing]

I am curious to know if you think that the government should be smaller or larger? How much should the maximum tax rate be in your country?

[aelle]

I don't think it makes much sense deciding on a tax rate without discussing how this money will be spent/redistributed. I think the amount of public money that goes towards elected politicians' expenses and marketing should be minimal.
If it's invested in infrastructure that serves the people and redistributed, then I'm fine with large amounts of taxes. Every business owner knows that you often need to regularly invest large amounts of money to run operations smoothly in the long run, and the State is no different.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by aelle

I don't think it makes much sense deciding on a tax rate without discussing how this money will be spent/redistributed. I think the amount of public money that goes towards elected politicians' expenses and marketing should be minimal.
If it's invested in infrastructure that serves the people and redistributed, then I'm fine with large amounts of taxes. Every business owner knows that you often need to regularly invest large amounts of money to run operations smoothly in the long run, and the State is no different.

I own multiple successful businesses and I see it differently.

As a business owner I don't spend based upon what my management says they'll need I do the opposite. I figure how much budget that business can afford and then they must figure how out to allocate it. If I disagree we'll have a meeting about it but otherwise I let them allocate it.

As citizens we are the employer and the gov't is the employees. As a group or culture it should be decided what is reasonable and then the gov't should have to figure out as our employees how to spend it.

Its my experience that if you ask for someone to give you a budget its always high. If you give someone an amount to work with then they find a way to make it work. (No more $75 gov't hammers)

In the US gov't its a "USE IT OR LOOSE IT SYSTEM". So as a department if you don't use all of your funds you end up loosing it the next year. Instead it should be dictated from the top down,,, this is how much you have to spend this year; now make it happen.

Our gov't is terribly inefficient and they have never balanced a budget once !

If you own a business and the IRS man comes to your door and you tell him you can't account for where your money went you'd be in serious trouble. Yet our gov't does this every year !

[Gabo]

Why isn't there a 0% option?

[WelfarestateChild]

Is the state neccesary? I certainly think not

[Eric Roosevelt]

Firstly, there are different types of taxes, and in almost all countries each tax has a different maximum.

It makes sense that corporate taxes should have a higher maximum than individual taxes, especially since market "failures" need to be corrected. This is how it is in most countries, except in freak states like Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Some countries have corporate taxes above 50% by the way. Denmark, for example, at the moment has a maximum corporate tax of about 63%.

There are also payroll taxes and the VAT tax which both vary from country to country.

I think the question of whether you should have high or low taxes depends, respectively, on whether you want a more dynamic and growth-oriented economy or if you favor economic stability and equality.

I don't think a 0% tax rate is a good thing because wealth can be inherited in various ways, which means that a lot of individuals become poor relative to others without it being their own fault. But I also think some countries have taken it too far and it's negatively impacting them in some ways (Denmark is a good example). Ultra-high corporate taxes probably aren't healthy in the long run.

[WelfarestateChild]

Taxes are not healthy at all. By punishing the rich you will not help the poor. By punishing the productive you will not help the unproductive. By forcefully spreading wealth around you disturb the natural balance of societys economic life.

Spreading wealth around is a critical step toward enslavement. My time, and the products thereof is MINE. I should be free to do with it as i please. Invest it, expand my buisness, give it to charity, gamble it all away. You name it.

[Jarreddo]

Damn, seeing the topic got me thinking up a response, but then I read the thread and it's not really what I thought it would be!

I'm not sure the government should absolutely be smaller, but I DO think it needs to get smaller right now. There is so much waste on things we don't really need. If the government had to shrink to, say, half of what it is right now, I think most of the useless parts would be cut off. And then we can start building back up with some things that we actually need, now that there's some money freed up.

The government right now is like a house with limited space, but everyone keeps buying furniture anyway. Spending is out of control and at this point, there are tables and chairs stacked to the ceiling. Of course we're having trouble passing a national health care plan, there's just no room! The government needs spring cleaning, so a bunch of the stuff we bought years ago actually gets thrown out. Then there'll be some free space.

As for giving the government a set amount of money and telling them to "make it work", we do that today... And then the government says "This isn't enough, so I guess we'll have to borrow the rest of what we need." And then the next time, they have even less to work with because they're paying the interest on what they borrowed, so what do they do? They borrow more.

[Jarreddo]

Originally Posted by WelfarestateChild

Taxes are not healthy at all. By punishing the rich you will not help the poor. By punishing the productive you will not help the unproductive. By forcefully spreading wealth around you disturb the natural balance of societys economic life.

Spreading wealth around is a critical step toward enslavement. My time, and the products thereof is MINE. I should be free to do with it as i please. Invest it, expand my buisness, give it to charity, gamble it all away. You name it.

So are you an anarchist or do you believe in trickle-down economics?

You say the rich shouldn't have to pay taxes, but if the poor don't have taxes either, then the government obviously won't have any money. Therefore, no government.

Or you can make the poor pay taxes and hope the rich people make their lives easier by giving to charity, investing in cheaper products and technology, etc.

Honestly, I'm hoping you're an anarchist, because that's something that hasn't been tried recently. Whereas, as Ross Perot said, "In the 1980s, we threw lots of money at the top, and most of it stayed up there." Supply-side economics just make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

[WelfarestateChild]

My plea is for a society which has no coercive entity that violently dictates what people must and must not. I belive that a natural state of existance among poor and rich, intelectuals and not so intelectuals is possible. Where the self interest of an individual with <capability will help the individual with >capability. People are not without moral, that is basically why people have allowed the governments of the western world to become giant welfarestate monsters. People believe it is moral and thus will bear the immidate costs.

But the voluntary society is far superior morally but also economically none the less

[WelfarestateChild]

And on a last note, i dont think you cant shrink government. People with power rarely tend to just give it away. Even if you succeed it will still - this power - have a base to grow.

America is a great example, it was founded on the princilples of individual liberty. Governments only function was to protect the freedoms of these individuals. But look at what it has become after aprox. 2 centuries. A giant monster that consumes the very individuals it was sworn to protect.

[Brutha]

If the government had to shrink to, say, half of what it is right now, I think most of the useless parts would be cut off.

I would rather think that the part that have the lowest number of lobbyist behind them would be cut off.
The military probably wouldn't be cut in halve.

[ThoughtAddict]

Originally Posted by Gabo

Why isn't there a 0% option?

And why not an "it depends" option? On some items (e.g. government contracts intended to create jobs), I see no problems with tax rates above 50%.

What we need is not less taxes, it is more intelligent taxes. Not less government, more intelligent government.

Originally Posted by Welfarestatechild

America is a great example, it was founded on the princilples of individual liberty. Governments only function was to protect the freedoms of these individuals. But look at what it has become after aprox. 2 centuries. A giant monster that consumes the very individuals it was sworn to protect.

Re-read the US Constitution. The government was given much, much greater power than merely those of protection.

[WelfarestateChild]

Originally Posted by ThoughtAddict

And why not an "it depends" option? On some items (e.g. government contracts intended to create jobs), I see no problems with tax rates above 50%.

What we need is not less taxes, it is more intelligent taxes. Not less government, more intelligent government.



Re-read the US Constitution. The government was given much, much greater power than merely those of protection.

I dont think you can get intelligent government that benefits the people under the current systems of control. Intelligent people will figure out how to exploit the state and the rest is history.

You need to get rid of the idea that a group of people has to have the monopoly on violence so they can stop the number of people that wishes to use violence to archive their ends.

See, the statist philosphy falls to the ground when you shed some light on it, for those people who wish to use violence to archive their ends will just end up using the state.

I think its safe to say the greatest power a statist government has, is the ability to iniate violence and eventually coerce entire populations.

That was my original point, that a statist entity will grow until it has destroyed itself. It doesent really matter what mini-powers within its powers it has, the fact is, that the monoply on violence is the root of it all.

[ThoughtAddict]

Originally Posted by WelfarestateChild

See, the statist philosphy falls to the ground when you shed some light on it, for those people who wish to use violence to archive their ends will just end up using the state.

You say that like using violence via "the state" is easier than using violence without a state...

I dont think you can get intelligent government that benefits the people under the current systems of control. Intelligent people will figure out how to exploit the state and the rest is history.

And other intelligent people will oppose their attempted exploitation, either out of a desire to have system of laws or because the exploitation by another person interferes with their own exploitation.
The number of servant-leaders who come into the system is staggering...

[WelfarestateChild]

The state does have an easier time confiscating your property than any individual would.
I would like to see you refuse paying taxes and resist fines, then court, and then finally the policemen comming to your adress for you.

[Angela Leeds]

Originally Posted by Gabo

Why isn't there a 0% option?

Was wondering the same...

[ThoughtAddict]

Originally Posted by WelfarestateChild

The state does have an easier time confiscating your property than any individual would.
I would like to see you refuse paying taxes and resist fines, then court, and then finally the policemen comming to your adress for you.

How is that an individual using the state to commit violence?
With no state, I'd wager my life would be easier to take. Who cares about property when you're dead?

[WelfarestateChild]

How is the state keeping you safe today? The police is not protecting you, and people do not not commit murder because they fear prison. Just take a look at yourself. The idea of taking another persons life is simply too far fetched. People are not without moral.

Everything the state does is through coercion. So things like prohibition, regulation etc. is violence. You get the lobbyists with politian friends who care really only about themselves and their closest. They will make programs that end up punishing you and benefiting them. But under a guise of course. Take for example central banking. It is a massive fraud taking place on the general population.

[ThoughtAddict]

Originally Posted by WelfarestateChild

How is the state keeping you safe today?

Ah, let me count the ways. I woke up and ate some food I bought at the store. I am confident that the food contains what its label says it contains. I am fairly confident it was produced using standards that will prevent me getting ill. With that food, I took some medicine. I am confident that the medicine does not contain any ingredients not listed on the label. I am confident that it was measured appropriately. My safety was supported by government testing of food and drugs.

Then I went for my morning run. I live in an interesting area of town. If you go two or three blocks in one direction, it turns very rough. The neighborhood I live in had a few burglaries about a month ago, as well as some suspicious activity. They've started patrols through the neighborhood, and I saw a police car driving down the street. The reports of crime have dropped to nearly zero since those patrols started. Oh, and the sidewalk was well maintained, which helped me keep from twisting a knee or ankle. Helps that the government requires that.

When I got back, I took a shower. The water was clean. It didn't have microorganisms that could cause infection. I then drove to the store to buy more food. Nobody ran into me. The traffic laws help to ensure that. If someone had, government regulations and class actions suits would help ensure that I won't die from that crash. I could trust the car manufacturers, but they care more about profit than safety. By having crash investigators, it becomes news if the type of car I drive isn't safe. Oh, and the streetlights on the way to the store all worked, allowing me to get there in a timely fashion.

To pay at the store, I used a bank's debit card. Thanks to banking regulations, I know that my money is safe in the bank up to the FDIC limit. I also know that my bank is bound by banking regulations and by the contract I signed when I became a member. I can enforce that contract in court, if need be. And the court will conduct a hearing in accordance with published rules that I can find and learn. In fact, every harm that could be inflicted upon me can be tested in court in accordance with the law.

I could go on, but this is getting off topic. I'm more than happy to pay taxes in order to ensure these safeties. I am more than happy to contribute to a system that provides substantive safeguards to my safety and property.

[WelfarestateChild]

You really think that people are naturally dumb and irresponsible? Dont forget it is only people that run the state.

[ThoughtAddict]

Originally Posted by WelfarestateChild

You really think that people are naturally dumb and irresponsible?

I never said that, nor would I ever say that. If you're trying to set up a strawman, that is an extremely poor and distasteful one.

[WelfarestateChild]

I just dont think that if you take away the gun pointing at the buisness owner he will start poisoning his customers. And i dont think that without pointing a gun at a group of people 'asking' for their money, pavements will be crappy.

[WelfarestateChild]

So in the absense of the state i dont think customers will be exploited and buisnesses will collapse. No, i think its the other way around. As soon as you have the gun in the picture buisnesses and the like will seek to be on safe end of it. So the very things that are legal/accepted could in reality be unhealthy or unethical, whatever.
The gun can be used for 'safety', perhaps, but it is already there through the self interest of buisness owners. I mean, poisoning customers must be bad for buisness, so is bad reputation in general.

In conclusion, the state which is a bunch of people with the monopoly on violence, which is a gun, can be used to seemingly good purposes, but which wil be archived better if the gun was completely removed. Also it can be used for evils. History kind of show that.
The gun, the state is too dangerous and there seem to be no real gains.

[ThoughtAddict]

Originally Posted by WelfarestateChild

I mean, poisoning customers must be bad for buisness, so is bad reputation in general.

If and only if 1) you rely on repeat customers, 2) they have information that they have been poisoned and 3) after being poisoned, they are not addicted to your product. See, all three of these can be worked to screw over a customer. In the absence of government, I can start a company. Let's call it "Pharms R Us". I sell cancer medication. See, the thing is, I'm an excellent advertiser. I advertise Pharms R Us and include a steep discount over legitimate cancer medication and people start buying. My products are as effective as sugar pills at treating cancer. Due to the nature of the business, I do not rely on 1 or 2. The cancer patients die of cancer. The medicines recommended by a doctor didn't work. Odds are, nobody will even test the meds to see they aren't legitimate.

Sound far-fetched? I'm referencing an actual case.

Or let's say I sell a product that works great as insulation. It works great for that purpose. The only problem is that it is toxic. It causes cancer and other lung disease to workers who install it. I'm fully aware, but I don't inform them of precautions they could take. The precautions cost money and may convince employers not to use the product. Instead, I sell it, knowing that the diseases won't appear for decades. Few people will know that my product caused their disease. Again, I can negate point 2.

Or I could negate 1 by changing the name and packaging of the company.
I've seen that before personally. Whenever sales would drop off from the poor reputation, the guy changed the name, website, and packaging and continued selling the same product. Consumers couldn't tell.

[WelfarestateChild]

So instead of having buisnesses compete, and consumers taking responsibily of their purchases, you would rather have the state leviathan oversee the market? Thats never going to work. It will just be used to approve dangerous products and people will be worse off because they actually think government approvals means the product is safe safe safe. Anyone can be the polititian or regulator if they so desire.

No no no, its much better with an open market, free of regulation and prohibition with maximum competition. That also teaches the consumer something.


Underwriters Labs is very popular among electronics manufacturers. It is a buisness like any other, these guys specialize in testing and safety stamping electronic products, these guys do buisness solely based on their reputation. Its not part of the state in any way.
I bet you will find the symbol UL encircled on some of your electronic equipment in your house. I have it on my microsoft keyboard and logitech PC mouse for example.

Underwriters Laboratories Inc.

[ThoughtAddict]

Originally Posted by WelfarestateChild

So instead of having buisnesses compete, and consumers taking responsibily of their purchases, you would rather have the state leviathan oversee the market?

Again, that's a poor straw man.

No no no, its much better with an open market, free of regulation and prohibition with maximum competition. That also teaches the consumer something.

Again, you're assuming perfect information, which is utterly unrealistic.

[WelfarestateChild]

YOU assume the state has perfect information and is run by perfect moral angel superheroes

[ThoughtAddict]

Originally Posted by WelfarestateChild

YOU assume the state has perfect information and is run by perfect moral angel superheroes

Not at all, my friend. Speaking as a new (and temporary) agent of the state, I know too well that it is run by human beings doing their best to be fair and equitable. And with significant power to get information to act on.

[Brutha]

It will just be used to approve dangerous products and people will be worse off because they actually think government approvals means the product is safe safe safe.

That just isn't true. Nobody believes that every product that the government approves is safe.

Lets say there no goverment. I find out that the above described cancer medication doesn't work.
That leaves me two choices:
1) Offering the drug company a deal that they pay me money and I don't tell anyone
2) Facing the company and get your reputation ruined through false rumour because a powerful drug company doens't want anyone to listen to you (the company also might kill you).

Bribery of the individuals (both through threats and gifts) and who work in a company that regulates would be more common if that practice wouldn't be illegal.
The company might retaliate by hiring a killer for every individual that sells out which would create circles of violence.

If you look at the way credit is given out in areas with low states power you will also find that violence is used to get the money back instead of suing a person.