Why Shouldn't a Government take all our Income? (Thread 1 of 2)

[silentwitness]

Let us now examine the historical evidence. Have capitalism, free markets, or low taxes often led to natural solidarity between men? I think not.

Has it been better than a system built on slavery or severely authoritarian government?

 

[Beryllos]

Of course you can find worse examples, but it is not difficult today to find better examples, not perfect, but better.

 

[silentwitness]

What should it be?

ok i was trying to get a consensus that it shouldn’t be 100% and why and go from there.

In the absence of that if i just take my thoughts then. It would be a number which encourages participation and reward and also does not build a powerful political elite.

I would say around 20% - 25% but there are a lot of other factors.

For example i recently watched a video that said that in some African countries 70 - 80% of the taxes collected went to pay government wages. So even then if the tax rate was 20% up to 16% would go to government wages which is terrible for two reasons. One is that it makes the government sector too powerful and secondly there is not enough over for investment in the private sector and citizen welfare.

Also a country that has already much infrastructure in place should need less than a government that is still building.

So my initial thoughts (that are subject to change) is that a range of tax rate might be 20% to 25% with a government employee sector as small as possible.

The phrase ‘as small as possible’ is very vague and again depends on the different types of state development.

It is hard to quantify this last factor. The main thing is that it does not continue to grow uncontrollably. Perhaps again a rate of 20 to 25% public sector might be about right. I would favour state security personnel, a limited civil service, healthcare professionals to the extent that decent services to every citizen are covered.

I think once a state is working well it should be an aim to lower both the tax rate and public sector without losing citizen protections where possible.

My thoughts are not set but still in flux regarding the question so having now given up on the original premise i will be back tomorrow to hopefully read others thoughts, including yours of course Yakuda.

 

[Yakuda]

Even the most rabid leftists won’t overtly say it should be 100% even if they think it but again I don’t think it’s the right question.

Let me be more specific. If the govt is telling me it needs 25% of my income but will use some of that money for things it has no authority to do then I dont think we should hand over 25% because they say so. The govt is bloated and in my opinion makes us pay for things that the constitution does not give them authority to do. Education is a huge one. The constitution doesn’t allow the govt to educate anyone so why should any money go to that purpose?

 

[adamhovey1988]

I think excessive taxation can be sinful (in fact, a form of usury), and I don’t completely object to progressive taxation (though, I’d prefer a flat tax), that being said, and I’m not sure why politicians can’t understand this, if you keep raising taxes, there will be no more money for people to pay them.

 

[silentwitness]

ok thanks Yakuda i will reply more fully tomorrow. I purposely left out the education sector in my thinking because i think it is something that the private sector should be encouraged to do. I also think much of the current divisiveness in society can be traced to public education. (a large topic in itself).

 

[Yakuda]

I agree about education as Bill Bennett says the question around education is, “What should be taught and who should teach it.”

Looking forward to your reply.

 

[dochawk]

We are talking about a theoretical government who takes 100% taxation

We could also talk of green flying carts, and make about as much senses. Would this effectively chase rodents from churches, so that more can come.

It is no more far-fetched than your premise, and would yield just as valuable (as in, worthless) discussion.

Not even the worst communist government went to 100%. (in fact, in the later days of the USSR, 3% of the land was permitted to be farmed privately , after-hours by the soviet serfs. It produced 25% of the national output . . .)

For the last part of the question can we start with answering the question of whether you believe in God and go from there?

If you have to ask that, it shows that you are utterly unfamiliar with this site and the discussions on it.

 

[dochawk]

. . . People are pointing out to you that what you are saying makes no sense.

People who have actually been here a while.

Not just your premises, but your demands that people fit their responses to your structure are, for lack of a better world, “juvenile.”

 

[silentwitness]

Let me be more specific. If the govt is telling me it needs 25% of my income but will use some of that money for things it has no authority to do then I dont think we should hand over 25% because they say so. The govt is bloated and in my opinion makes us pay for things that the constitution does not give them authority to do. Education is a huge one. The constitution doesn’t allow the govt to educate anyone so why should any money go to that purpose?

I think that it is important to limit the size of the public sector because in some ways it is an artificial construction that can disrupt the balance of society.

It receives it’s power from the money it collects rather than the wealth it produces and it has much control over how much money it collects. Not surprisingly its size and power keeps increasing to the detriment of society.

I also think because of the size and power of the state it gets to define the culture which is another source of conflict. For those who want to oppose traditional culture and force a manufactured culture on other people, for example the authoritarians such as socialists, then to take control of the state is a means to do this.

A powerful state in the hands of people who want to destroy existing structures, tradition and morality is very dangerous.

To go back to education, this is why i think it is preferable for a state to have minimal (where possible) day to day running of the education system. Both in terms of protecting existing culture and resisting a culture that others want to implement through control of state apparatus.

I think in part the falling educational outcomes in relative terms have been because of this use of the education system to facilitate cultural change.

Also because the state can collect money off citizens and print its own money it tends to look after its own artificial sector first without necessarily considering sustainability. We saw this in the lockdown where the people creating the wealth were in many instances told not to work and the public sector who rely on that wealth for its own income continued to receive a salary. This topsy turvy understanding of the economy can skew an economy into serious decline. Again we see that in socialist states such as Venezxuela. One of the big dangers is a government who just keeps borrowing to facilitate a topsy turvey understanding. We know that governments go bankrupt. The larger the government to the size of the overall economy, the more trouble a government heading towards bankruptcy will give to its citizens.

So it is a big conversation which can go off into so many different avenues. This is one reason why i tried to give the thread some handrails. But i do think as far as the size of the state is concerned there should be legislative limits put on its size and my uneducated view would be a starting level of no more than 25% and a real desire to bring that level down while still protecting citizen’s health and security.

I guess we can talk about tax rates also but what are your thoughts regarding the size of government as a percentage of the economy?

 

[Yakuda]

As to the size of govt it is huge and bloated. When an overweight person says give me a donut the answer should be “No”. The govt asking for more money is exactly like that overweight person asking for a donut. We don’t have a revenue problem we have a spending problem.

 

[JulianN]

I am not sure what i am supposed to be waiting for but between green flying carts and chasing rodents out of churches, as well as missing the point of the thread, then yes, there is not much sense there.

Thanks for stirring the pot though Julian. I am sure that is going to be productive.

You posited a nonsensical situation, and keep moving the goalposts of the discussion. And then you accuse the economics professor of being silly and suggest he not post in a thread about economics.

It’s not stirring the pot to point out that the lack of sense is not coming from the Econ. professor.

 

[silentwitness]

The thread is simple.

1. Do people agree that it is morally and economically wrong for a government to take 100% of income.
2. If so, what are the reasons for it being morally and economically wrong for the government to do this.
3. Given the reasons in 2) as a guide, can we set upper limits on how big the government should be and how much income it should take based on moral and economic principles.

There is nothing nonsensical in this approach.

If you think it is nonsensical then please don’t participate and keep any emotional need to tell people they are nonsensical to yourself.

 

[Theo520]

The thread is simple.

1. Do people agree that it is morally and economically wrong for a government to take 100% of income.
2. If so, what are the reasons for it being morally and economically wrong for the government to do this.
3. Given the reasons in 2) as a guide, can we set upper limits on how big the government should be and how much income it should take based on moral and economic principles.

There is nothing nonsensical in this approach.

If you think it is nonsensical then please don’t participate and keep any emotional need to tell people they are nonsensical to yourself.

1. Yes
2. That’s called stealing, which is morally wrong and illegal by present law. It leaves people destitute and obviously unmotivated to keep working for zero pay.
3. No, we can’t agree on upper limits. This is why it’s best done locally so your neighbors and you vote on the govt services and corresponding taxes you agree to pay. Different cities and states come to different agreements with their citizens.

 

[silentwitness]

For your area Theo what do you think the upper limit should be?

 

[Theo520]

For your area Theo what do you think the upper limit should be?

Property taxes and sales taxes are not income based, but are a big part of providing local services. My community has already reached the level they are comfortable with. Recent evidence shows going higher will drive away businesses, thus causing a decline in revenue for the Govt.