The problem is with recognizing your point. If they do that, they have to admit that the US gov’t is bankrupt (which it is.) Just think of the many projects being built with ‘government money.’ RE:Misha’s point - the utility of most public expenditure is local and subjective. By-and-large, it seems to me that the gov’t has become a huge money laundering operation, taking taxpayer monies and distributing it to NGOs, Universites, labor unions, and all of the CPB, NEA, NEH, NES, ex/im bank, USAID, etc. to entities that will take the money and in return fund the Dem party.
The gov't funds nothing. One could look at it as an agent that works on behalf of those that do fund it, the people of the jurisdiction, and specifically their assets, property and incomes.
The people are not broke. They supply funds to an governing entity to perform needed work. Unfortunately, the govt has become so vast and unmanageable that it takes and spends as it pleases.
If we're reasoning in a perfect world (ceteris paribus and all that), the basic idea is that the government extracts $4 trillion in taxes and spends $5 trillion dollars on public works and the like. A single taxpayer thus pays a fraction of the $4 trillion, depending on wealth, but receives a much larger portion of the $5 trillion in goods (bridges, schools, etc.), depending on where they live.
But you're suggesting that, even after spending $5 trillion on public works, the government still owes the taxpayer a $4 trillion return? That they are not $1 trillion in debt but $5 trillion?
I'm as distrustful of politicians (doubly so around money, and especially around *my* money) as the next person, and I appreciate the fact that this perfect transaction is realized exactly 0% of the time. Yet I don't think a proper theory of taxation is unsound; it's just that people who pursue power tend to do so for selfish reasons.
My only point is that govt has no money or rather resources; that it contributes nothing to its expenditures; that it is fully reliant upon the residents of its jurisdiction for the funds or resources to function. Thus, the deficit is the whole of public expenditures, not just the borrowed portion.
Does it matter to the govt how it obtains the funds to supply public goods? The answer is no. But it does matter to the people of the jurisdiction, and specifically their assets, property and incomes. Is it better that a govt tax or borrow from those assets? The answer is borrow, and always.
One little change in perspective can create massive changes in thought and practice.
Yes, I always get a kick out of government ads (aka propaganda) that end with the statement “Paid for by the government of …”. No, it’s paid for by the taxpayers and consumers (via that hidden tax of inflation)—not the criminals that form government!
I wonder whether it's necessary for the government to tax or borrow at all. In our capitalist system, why not simply act as any other entity who owns capital, and charge those who would avail themselves of the products or services such a vast pool of capital can provide?
What you speak of shall become a big issue. What is a good public investment and what is better left to the private sector?
There shall always be a need for government. There are things that we can do together that we cannot do apart. One maybe road maintenance. If there is a hole in a roadway that costs a vehicle owner $1000 in car repairs for every hit, and there are 30 hits a week. The cost to the community would be $30,000 per week. If it costs $50,000 to repair the hole, no one person would bear the expense, but a community would. The investment would pay off in less than 2 weeks.
Cost and Benefit analysis would become the standard for any public expenditure: welfare, education, road building and repair, police, courts, etc. A great many things that presently receive government funding no longer would. Why fight a drug war when one could give addicts a safe supply first and then efforts at rehabilitation second? Why have military bases all over the world?
The world would be a very different place with government much diminished in size, with local government the big winner and Federal gov't the loser. People like to see their money at work, not handed to people in distant places for dubious endeavors.
The problem is with recognizing your point. If they do that, they have to admit that the US gov’t is bankrupt (which it is.) Just think of the many projects being built with ‘government money.’ RE:Misha’s point - the utility of most public expenditure is local and subjective. By-and-large, it seems to me that the gov’t has become a huge money laundering operation, taking taxpayer monies and distributing it to NGOs, Universites, labor unions, and all of the CPB, NEA, NEH, NES, ex/im bank, USAID, etc. to entities that will take the money and in return fund the Dem party.
The gov't funds nothing. One could look at it as an agent that works on behalf of those that do fund it, the people of the jurisdiction, and specifically their assets, property and incomes.
The people are not broke. They supply funds to an governing entity to perform needed work. Unfortunately, the govt has become so vast and unmanageable that it takes and spends as it pleases.
I don't understand your main argument here.
If we're reasoning in a perfect world (ceteris paribus and all that), the basic idea is that the government extracts $4 trillion in taxes and spends $5 trillion dollars on public works and the like. A single taxpayer thus pays a fraction of the $4 trillion, depending on wealth, but receives a much larger portion of the $5 trillion in goods (bridges, schools, etc.), depending on where they live.
But you're suggesting that, even after spending $5 trillion on public works, the government still owes the taxpayer a $4 trillion return? That they are not $1 trillion in debt but $5 trillion?
I'm as distrustful of politicians (doubly so around money, and especially around *my* money) as the next person, and I appreciate the fact that this perfect transaction is realized exactly 0% of the time. Yet I don't think a proper theory of taxation is unsound; it's just that people who pursue power tend to do so for selfish reasons.
My only point is that govt has no money or rather resources; that it contributes nothing to its expenditures; that it is fully reliant upon the residents of its jurisdiction for the funds or resources to function. Thus, the deficit is the whole of public expenditures, not just the borrowed portion.
Does it matter to the govt how it obtains the funds to supply public goods? The answer is no. But it does matter to the people of the jurisdiction, and specifically their assets, property and incomes. Is it better that a govt tax or borrow from those assets? The answer is borrow, and always.
One little change in perspective can create massive changes in thought and practice.
Yes, I always get a kick out of government ads (aka propaganda) that end with the statement “Paid for by the government of …”. No, it’s paid for by the taxpayers and consumers (via that hidden tax of inflation)—not the criminals that form government!
It's amazing how this collosal blunder has seeded itself into our mind and ideas.
I wonder whether it's necessary for the government to tax or borrow at all. In our capitalist system, why not simply act as any other entity who owns capital, and charge those who would avail themselves of the products or services such a vast pool of capital can provide?
Thanks for writing and subscribing. So few do.
What you speak of shall become a big issue. What is a good public investment and what is better left to the private sector?
There shall always be a need for government. There are things that we can do together that we cannot do apart. One maybe road maintenance. If there is a hole in a roadway that costs a vehicle owner $1000 in car repairs for every hit, and there are 30 hits a week. The cost to the community would be $30,000 per week. If it costs $50,000 to repair the hole, no one person would bear the expense, but a community would. The investment would pay off in less than 2 weeks.
Cost and Benefit analysis would become the standard for any public expenditure: welfare, education, road building and repair, police, courts, etc. A great many things that presently receive government funding no longer would. Why fight a drug war when one could give addicts a safe supply first and then efforts at rehabilitation second? Why have military bases all over the world?
The world would be a very different place with government much diminished in size, with local government the big winner and Federal gov't the loser. People like to see their money at work, not handed to people in distant places for dubious endeavors.