3 ms·

> You meant "cost for government," right? Well, depends on if you want a government capable of affording to pay for public education, roads, military, etc. I

> You meant "cost for government," right? Well, depends on if you want a government capable of affording to pay for public education, roads, military, etc. I mean if you care about none of these things and want the government completely destroyed, a 50% revenue cut might seem okay to you.

clarkmoody 11y ago
Of course I care about those things. I simply think that government is not required to provide them.
- cmurf 11y ago
  Sounds good in theory, but practice that's silly. No business buys $5 billion bridges, like the new one being built now in NY cruising the Hudson. No business buys $5 billion airports, like Denver International, and the latest estimate to renovate LaGuardia. That requires a sovereign to borrow that much money in a way that lenders trust will be repaid. If you want to argue governments act in part to facilitate waste and fraud, i.e. those airports and bridges don't really cost that much, I agree, but unless there's aggressive auditing attached to every project, I see no way around it. Enough people are sufficiently dishonest and greedy they will take if they can get away with it.
- fweespee_ch 11y ago
  So who provides them if the government does not without falling into the tragedy of the commons and/or cutting off the poor from access to such services?
  - clarkmoody 11y ago
    James Tooley has done fascinating work on private education for the poor around the world, putting the lie to the myths that private education is only for the wealthy and that the government must provide education. There is an excellent EconTalk expisode[1] with Tooley, as well as a lengthy article here[2] by the author. [1] http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/12/james_tooley_on.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/12/james_tooley_on.htm... [2] http://educationnext.org/privateschoolsforthepoor/ http://educationnext.org/privateschoolsforthepoor/
    - fweespee_ch 11y ago
      1) What does that have to do with roads, military, etc? 2) His argument still would fundamentally function as a regressive tax burden greater than the existing tax burden [for education] on the poor. 3) A fee-for-service regressive tax burden will ultimately cut the poor off from services. > With a minimum wage of about $33 per month in the area, monthly fees in the private unrecognized schools are thus about 12 percent of the average monthly earnings of an adult earner. You do understand in the US the poor aren't paying 12% of their income to send their kids to school right? https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/military-spending-united-states/ https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/military-spendi... http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-inco... The full federal tax burden for education, infrastructure, etc. on the poor is ~3%. http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-local-tax-burden-rankings-fy-2012 http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-local-tax-burden-rank... If you factor in the state-and-local burden, the full burden is barely higher at ~13%. So for literally one service, the cost is nearly the entire tax burden for the poor.
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  So the math in play here is "what are public goods? non-rival and non-excludable. There! Done in one :)

clarkmoody 11y ago

Of course I care about those things. I simply think that government is not required to provide them.

cmurf 11y ago
Sounds good in theory, but practice that's silly. No business buys $5 billion bridges, like the new one being built now in NY cruising the Hudson. No business buys $5 billion airports, like Denver International, and the latest estimate to renovate LaGuardia. That requires a sovereign to borrow that much money in a way that lenders trust will be repaid. If you want to argue governments act in part to facilitate waste and fraud, i.e. those airports and bridges don't really cost that much, I agree, but unless there's aggressive auditing attached to every project, I see no way around it. Enough people are sufficiently dishonest and greedy they will take if they can get away with it.
fweespee_ch 11y ago
So who provides them if the government does not without falling into the tragedy of the commons and/or cutting off the poor from access to such services?
- clarkmoody 11y ago
  James Tooley has done fascinating work on private education for the poor around the world, putting the lie to the myths that private education is only for the wealthy and that the government must provide education. There is an excellent EconTalk expisode[1] with Tooley, as well as a lengthy article here[2] by the author. [1] http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/12/james_tooley_on.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/12/james_tooley_on.htm... [2] http://educationnext.org/privateschoolsforthepoor/ http://educationnext.org/privateschoolsforthepoor/
  - fweespee_ch 11y ago
    1) What does that have to do with roads, military, etc? 2) His argument still would fundamentally function as a regressive tax burden greater than the existing tax burden [for education] on the poor. 3) A fee-for-service regressive tax burden will ultimately cut the poor off from services. > With a minimum wage of about $33 per month in the area, monthly fees in the private unrecognized schools are thus about 12 percent of the average monthly earnings of an adult earner. You do understand in the US the poor aren't paying 12% of their income to send their kids to school right? https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/military-spending-united-states/ https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/military-spendi... http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-inco... The full federal tax burden for education, infrastructure, etc. on the poor is ~3%. http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-local-tax-burden-rankings-fy-2012 http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-local-tax-burden-rank... If you factor in the state-and-local burden, the full burden is barely higher at ~13%. So for literally one service, the cost is nearly the entire tax burden for the poor.
ArkyBeagle 11y ago
So the math in play here is "what are public goods? non-rival and non-excludable. There! Done in one :)