6 ms·

Don't forget the 10% sales tax.

by uuilly 16y ago

CWuestefeld 16y ago
This is the thing that galls me the most, believe it or not. My employer typically makes less than 10% margin on the products it sells. That means that for all the work that we do, the state government is taking more money from the transaction than we ourselves make -- and what have they done to earn it? Now add on top of that the corporate income tax and other ways they're bled. With all this in perspective, it's really hard to see why anyone would want to start a business.
- gnaritas 16y ago
  > he state government is taking more money from the transaction than we ourselves make -- and what have they done to earn it? Seriously? Without a stable government enforcing property rights and the rule of law you wouldn't be able to conduct business reliably. Government provides the field business is played on, they have every right to a cut to pay for providing that field. Peace isn't free.
  - jquery 16y ago
    Does peace and a fair playing field require 30-40% of every productive person's income, or is that the result of special interests crowding out the core functions of government?
    - gnaritas 16y ago
      A little of both I'd say, but what you consider special interests other people consider interests. In a democracy there's always going to be disagreement about what's necessary and all good compromises leave everyone feeling a little unhappy.
      - jquery 16y ago
        Well, I will agree with you there--government generally leaves people feeling unhappy, which I why I prefer decentralizing it, letting people move out of the jurisdiction of a government that makes them miserable. That's the beauty of federalism and our Constitution. :)
    - _delirium 16y ago
      I'd say it takes a good part of that. Some is direct: military, police, court, and prison spending accounts for a huge proportion of total government budgets, more than half. And some is indirect: there is only some level of inequality people will tolerate before there's rioting and seizure of property, so things like social safety nets indirectly serve to guarantee property rights by mollifying discontent.
      - gnaritas 16y ago
        That's a point a lot of people miss; redistribution of wealth to maintain acceptable levels of inequality are what maintain the peace. It doesn't matter if redistribution of wealth is right or wrong, only that it's a practical necessity to maintain a stable society.
  - brc 16y ago
    I think the Federal government does most of those things. He's talking about state tax, I believe. It's fair that everyone should pay taxes. It's ridiculous when the productive sectors of the economy get taxed heavily to subsidise non-productive sectors. Too many governments are approaching 50% of GDP - meaning half the country is working just to support the other half. This is madness anyway you cut it.
    - countersignaler 16y ago
      > meaning half the country is working just to support the other half. What? That's not at all what it means.
      - brc 16y ago
        Nearly all of government services are paid for by tax receipts of all kinds. If half the country is getting paid from the tax receipts of the other half, what other definition can you use?
        gnaritas 16y ago
        Half isn't getting paid from tax receipts for the other half. Everyone paying taxes is also getting benefits for what they put in. It's not as simple as just rich people paying for poor people. It's more that people kick in different amounts into the pool and then it's redistributed back out based on need. Wealth redistribution is necessary for a stable society.
        brc 16y ago
        I didn't say anything about benefits. I was talking about money. All government services are paid by taxes of one kind or another, yes? If 50% of the GDP is government spending, therefore, the other 50% is by definition non-government activity. Half of the population is paying for the other half to live. It matters not that a public servant pays taxes - that money goes straight back into the government, and pays him back. I disagree with you strongly that wealth distribution is <em>required</em> for a stable society. I would say that forced wealth redistribution leads to unstable societies, as it all degenerates into what is fair and unfair, of which everyones idea is different. As soon as the route to wealth becomes one of obtaining power and influence rather than hard work, you're on the road to Greece and riots in the streets. Or total collapse of government/society such as former communist countries, which were based by definition on wealth redistribution. The concept of fairness should apply only to being able to keep the bulk of the wealth created by onesself. Government services are necessary for a stable society, no doubt. Government services in a lot of cases increase the wealth of society by providing natural monopolies such as roads, ports, police and defense. We all benefit from government services. I'll put it into an analogy. 10 people are on a deserted island, and there are tasks to be done to survive, which is fish, collect coconuts and fresh water. If 5 people are collecting coconuts, fish and fresh water, and sharing it to the other 5, then it doesn't matter what the other 5 are doing, whether painting pictures, snoozing in the sun, formulating foreign policy or building rafts to invade the neighbouring island, you can't escape the fact that one half of the island is working to provide for the other half. When they invade the other island and find a fridge full of beer, the total wealth and benefits for the island go up, but 50% of the people are still living off the work of the other 50%. Anyway you slice it, if you're working for the government in any way, you're getting paid by tax receipts. And when 50% of the economy is government services, one half of the economy is paying for the other half. It's not a perfect analogy but is intended to get people thinking about the size of government. The only exceptions are where governments own money-creating investments like net positive sovereign wealth funds, and they are few and far between, and usually identified by having low or no taxes.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > Seriously? Without a stable government enforcing property rights and the rule of law you wouldn't be able to conduct business reliably. Government provides the field business is played on, they have every right to a cut to pay for providing that field. Peace isn't free. Some states manage to do those things for a lot less than 9.5% plus income tax. The US federal, state, and local govts collect more per person than most EU countries (even after you deduct defense) and we don't get anywhere near the services.
    - _delirium 16y ago
      Partly that's because of our fear of "socialism". We'd prefer to give away $50 in subsidies, allowing people to buy some sort of private service, versus having the government provide it for $30. See: EU countries' national health-care systems versus our Medicaid+Medicare+SCHIP+etc.
      - anamax 16y ago
        > See: EU countries' national health-care systems versus our Medicaid+Medicare+SCHIP+etc. You're assuming that the US govt can efficiently provide services. (Its payment systems can cut a check cheaply, which is what the "Medicare overhead" numbers measure, but can be susceptible to fraud. Note that despite rampant fraud, it's harder to win a dispute with Medicare than it is with private insurers.) The US govt currently spends more per resident than EU countries do on healthcare yet manages to cover a much smaller fraction of the population. That's why I wanted to give Obama free rein over existing govt healthcare, including all govt employees (state and local too), and maybe even employees of companies that get >80% of their revenues from govt contracts. That works out to well over twice EU spending (per capita) on covered folk. Since the promise of govt healthcare is cheaper and better, in years 2-4, we cut the per-capita budget by 5% (which is a bit over 20%, or less than the 30% savings promised by single payer advocates). At the end of that time, we'll know whether the US govt can provide healthcare. After all, it doesn't matter whether other contries can do it, it matters whether the US govt can do it.
        gnaritas 16y ago
- jacoblyles 16y ago
  >and what have they done to earn it? Mostly they have made expensive labor contracts with public sector unions who in turn control the elections. And by the way, despite the high tax burden California is still close to bankruptcy. They need more. Costs a lot to keep those unions fed. The politically correct thing to believe is that California's budget woes are caused by those evil right-wingers who have prevented the state from collecting even more taxes. Heh.

Don't forget the 10% sales tax.

by uuilly 16y ago

Don't forget the 10% sales tax.

This is the thing that galls me the most, believe it or not. My employer typically makes less than 10% margin on the products it sells. That means that for all the work that we do, the state government is taking more money from the transaction than we ourselves make -- and what have they done to earn it? Now add on top of that the corporate income tax and other ways they're bled. With all this in perspective, it's really hard to see why anyone would want to start a business.

gnaritas 16y ago
> he state government is taking more money from the transaction than we ourselves make -- and what have they done to earn it? Seriously? Without a stable government enforcing property rights and the rule of law you wouldn't be able to conduct business reliably. Government provides the field business is played on, they have every right to a cut to pay for providing that field. Peace isn't free.
- jquery 16y ago
  Does peace and a fair playing field require 30-40% of every productive person's income, or is that the result of special interests crowding out the core functions of government?
  - gnaritas 16y ago
    A little of both I'd say, but what you consider special interests other people consider interests. In a democracy there's always going to be disagreement about what's necessary and all good compromises leave everyone feeling a little unhappy.
    - jquery 16y ago
      Well, I will agree with you there--government generally leaves people feeling unhappy, which I why I prefer decentralizing it, letting people move out of the jurisdiction of a government that makes them miserable. That's the beauty of federalism and our Constitution. :)
  - _delirium 16y ago
    I'd say it takes a good part of that. Some is direct: military, police, court, and prison spending accounts for a huge proportion of total government budgets, more than half. And some is indirect: there is only some level of inequality people will tolerate before there's rioting and seizure of property, so things like social safety nets indirectly serve to guarantee property rights by mollifying discontent.
    - gnaritas 16y ago
      That's a point a lot of people miss; redistribution of wealth to maintain acceptable levels of inequality are what maintain the peace. It doesn't matter if redistribution of wealth is right or wrong, only that it's a practical necessity to maintain a stable society.
- brc 16y ago
  I think the Federal government does most of those things. He's talking about state tax, I believe. It's fair that everyone should pay taxes. It's ridiculous when the productive sectors of the economy get taxed heavily to subsidise non-productive sectors. Too many governments are approaching 50% of GDP - meaning half the country is working just to support the other half. This is madness anyway you cut it.
  - countersignaler 16y ago
    > meaning half the country is working just to support the other half. What? That's not at all what it means.
    - brc 16y ago
      Nearly all of government services are paid for by tax receipts of all kinds. If half the country is getting paid from the tax receipts of the other half, what other definition can you use?
      - gnaritas 16y ago
        Half isn't getting paid from tax receipts for the other half. Everyone paying taxes is also getting benefits for what they put in. It's not as simple as just rich people paying for poor people. It's more that people kick in different amounts into the pool and then it's redistributed back out based on need. Wealth redistribution is necessary for a stable society.
        brc 16y ago
        I didn't say anything about benefits. I was talking about money. All government services are paid by taxes of one kind or another, yes? If 50% of the GDP is government spending, therefore, the other 50% is by definition non-government activity. Half of the population is paying for the other half to live. It matters not that a public servant pays taxes - that money goes straight back into the government, and pays him back. I disagree with you strongly that wealth distribution is <em>required</em> for a stable society. I would say that forced wealth redistribution leads to unstable societies, as it all degenerates into what is fair and unfair, of which everyones idea is different. As soon as the route to wealth becomes one of obtaining power and influence rather than hard work, you're on the road to Greece and riots in the streets. Or total collapse of government/society such as former communist countries, which were based by definition on wealth redistribution. The concept of fairness should apply only to being able to keep the bulk of the wealth created by onesself. Government services are necessary for a stable society, no doubt. Government services in a lot of cases increase the wealth of society by providing natural monopolies such as roads, ports, police and defense. We all benefit from government services. I'll put it into an analogy. 10 people are on a deserted island, and there are tasks to be done to survive, which is fish, collect coconuts and fresh water. If 5 people are collecting coconuts, fish and fresh water, and sharing it to the other 5, then it doesn't matter what the other 5 are doing, whether painting pictures, snoozing in the sun, formulating foreign policy or building rafts to invade the neighbouring island, you can't escape the fact that one half of the island is working to provide for the other half. When they invade the other island and find a fridge full of beer, the total wealth and benefits for the island go up, but 50% of the people are still living off the work of the other 50%. Anyway you slice it, if you're working for the government in any way, you're getting paid by tax receipts. And when 50% of the economy is government services, one half of the economy is paying for the other half. It's not a perfect analogy but is intended to get people thinking about the size of government. The only exceptions are where governments own money-creating investments like net positive sovereign wealth funds, and they are few and far between, and usually identified by having low or no taxes.
- anamax 16y ago
  > Seriously? Without a stable government enforcing property rights and the rule of law you wouldn't be able to conduct business reliably. Government provides the field business is played on, they have every right to a cut to pay for providing that field. Peace isn't free. Some states manage to do those things for a lot less than 9.5% plus income tax. The US federal, state, and local govts collect more per person than most EU countries (even after you deduct defense) and we don't get anywhere near the services.
  - _delirium 16y ago
    Partly that's because of our fear of "socialism". We'd prefer to give away $50 in subsidies, allowing people to buy some sort of private service, versus having the government provide it for $30. See: EU countries' national health-care systems versus our Medicaid+Medicare+SCHIP+etc.
    - anamax 16y ago
      > See: EU countries' national health-care systems versus our Medicaid+Medicare+SCHIP+etc. You're assuming that the US govt can efficiently provide services. (Its payment systems can cut a check cheaply, which is what the "Medicare overhead" numbers measure, but can be susceptible to fraud. Note that despite rampant fraud, it's harder to win a dispute with Medicare than it is with private insurers.) The US govt currently spends more per resident than EU countries do on healthcare yet manages to cover a much smaller fraction of the population. That's why I wanted to give Obama free rein over existing govt healthcare, including all govt employees (state and local too), and maybe even employees of companies that get >80% of their revenues from govt contracts. That works out to well over twice EU spending (per capita) on covered folk. Since the promise of govt healthcare is cheaper and better, in years 2-4, we cut the per-capita budget by 5% (which is a bit over 20%, or less than the 30% savings promised by single payer advocates). At the end of that time, we'll know whether the US govt can provide healthcare. After all, it doesn't matter whether other contries can do it, it matters whether the US govt can do it.
      - gnaritas 16y ago
jacoblyles 16y ago
>and what have they done to earn it? Mostly they have made expensive labor contracts with public sector unions who in turn control the elections. And by the way, despite the high tax burden California is still close to bankruptcy. They need more. Costs a lot to keep those unions fed. The politically correct thing to believe is that California's budget woes are caused by those evil right-wingers who have prevented the state from collecting even more taxes. Heh.