11 ms·

Indeed! Voters want great gov't services but also hate paying taxes. These are often contradictory. Sometimes you get what you pay for and can't vote for a magi

by tabtab 7y ago

Indeed! Voters want great gov't services but also hate paying taxes. These are often contradictory. Sometimes you get what you pay for and can't vote for a magic lunch. People complain about how slow the DMV is, but if you ask them if they want their car registration fees increased to reduce waits, most will say "no".

mcrad 7y ago
Hate is a strong word - perhaps these voters you speak of simply don't feel there is a very strong correlation between amount of taxes/fees paid, and services rendered.
- stretchwithme 7y ago
  And many who talk about how we should gladly pay our taxes get or figure they would get more than they pay in if everybody would happily pay as much as they possibly could. Not that the amount of taxes paid ever stopped a government from trying borrow and spend way more than that.
  - tabtab 7y ago
    Re: Not that the amount of taxes paid ever stopped a government from trying borrow and spend way more than that. Government, taxes, and private industry are all tools of civilization. Tools are imperfect and the human managers & users are imperfect. One has to monitor all of them to keep them in decent working order. They won't just automatically run in an optimum mode if citizens don't keep a critical eye on them all.
  - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
    Governments don't "borrow and spend". Money is a political abstraction, not a tangible one. It is physically impossible for a government to run out of fiat money. The only things a government can run out of are faith in the future and internal and external trust. When either or both of those disappear, human animals panic and the economy stops working. Private enclosure of capital - which is equivalent to private enclosure of political and economic power - is far more likely to create that sort of breakdown than high taxes and generous public spending. (Effective - non-corrupt - public spending being equivalent to policy decisions that broaden and diffuse political power rather than concentrating it.) Effective generous public spending is actually a political negative feedback mechanism that damps wild oscillations in confidence, seeds future investment, and enhances political stability.
    - tabtab 7y ago
      In practice the gov't has to pretend like the money is real in order to prevent chaos. In fact both gov't and citizens have to pretend "properly" for it to work. It's a mutual agreement about how to represent the value of commerce. Laws are the same way: members of civilization have to mutually agree on how to create and follow the laws for them to "work". Civilization is the Mother of All Handshakes. If a large enough percentage of the population disagrees with the "agreements", anarchy happens. Modern technology and civilization are both inherently driven by standards: both written and de-facto.
    - stretchwithme 7y ago
      I think you're confusing money with resources. Money is a medium of exchange. The resources are real. Governments frequently consume more resources than they can purchase with the taxes they collect. Yes, they could just print all the money they could ever need. And when they do, inflation runs wild. Then a government cannot borrow in its own currency because no one will trust it. Or it must pay a high rate. The US government is in a unique situation. It's been able to print much more than a government normally could because it is the most trusted reserve currency in a rapidly globalizing world. Trillions of dollars are held overseas. And if the dollar loses that role, you will see a lot of inflation as those dollars return to the US. Even if it doesn't lose that role and the world just stops taking additional dollars, the US would have to print less to keep the same rate of inflation. Most governments don't fall into this category. And no country is in this category forever. A country's currency is really just another form of debt. And while it may never run out, the more it prints, the more it declines in value. It's not debt people can collect on, but the law of supply and demand will certainly collect on this debt. And it's also a tax, a tax on savings. And the country could remove dollars from circulation, thereby reducing this debt and reversing the decline in the value of savings.
      - duahncjak 7y ago
        Countries have held much higher debt levels than the US currently does without being the global reserve currency.
- roenxi 7y ago
  'Tax' is a simple word for a simple concept that spirals into a very complicated topic in practice. Through taxes the pacifist supports wars, the environmentalist industrialisation, the bigot equality and the individualist collectivism, the staunch right winger the salaries of the leftist politicians, etc, etc. Hating on the general concept of taxes isn't very productive but people are quite unhappy about the details. Politics involves painful compromises and tax is one of the pointy ends of politics. I'd hazard that taxes are usually raised to force people to support ideas that the individual taxpayers vehemently oppose - because otherwise presumably said taxpayer would already be paying for the service.
  - erikpukinskis 7y ago
    > taxes are usually raised to force people to support.... Sorry, the first half of your sentence is too broad for the rest of it to possibly be true.
    - roenxi 7y ago
      Honestly I'm not sure your comment is any more helpful to me than just leaving a down vote. You havn't explained what you mean, there isn't an argument and I'm at a loss trying to follow your complaint. I could see that applying to the other part of the sentence - "ideas that the individual taxpayers vehemently oppose" - but the bit you've picked out is just literally true. Taxes are levied to finance schemes whether the taxpayer agrees with them or not.
      - erikpukinskis 7y ago
        Sorry, didn’t mean to be obtuse. Logically speaking, the assertion that 50%+ of taxes are driven by the same motivation seems impossible. Taxation is such a generic mechanism at work in so many different places, your assertion seems like a non-starter to me. Did you intend to make such a strong claim?
        roenxi 7y ago
        That I can learn from. Thanks :) The intent was quite different, I didn't see a reading of that sentence that involved motivation but now that it has been pointed out I can see that it is the most obvious one. My intent was more about the outcomes of a tax but that wasn't expressed. What I wanted to say was something more like "No political decision has perfect support, and many cause stark divisions. But taxpayers financially support all the decisions taken and they will be vehemently opposed to some of the things they fund".
i_am_proteus 7y ago
Washington State has privatized the DMV for most non-ID-card-related transactions (titling, etc.). It's cheaper and faster than every fully-state-run DMV I've experienced.
- tabtab 7y ago
  Privatization is often a varied bag. Sometimes the contractor does a good job and sometimes a lousy job. Letting it be a directly gov't run process tends to get a consistent "C" grade, while privatization may get you an "A" sometimes and an "F" others. In other words, the variation is larger. This has also been true of schools and power utilities. This tends to happen because the owners are usually a relatively small group of people or an individual, and their individual personalities and changing goals will shape the quality of job they do. They may decide on a whim, "I'll milk out my fortune now and dump the problem on the public."
  - atq2119 7y ago
    I wish more people understood this. Where privatisation does fix things, it's usually simply because the process of privatisation gives somebody the political capital to implement massive organizational change, and that somebody happened to be the right person for it. Conversely, when privatised infrastructure is a mess, it can be beneficial to have it taken over by the state. Again, the mere fact of doing so will give somebody the political capital to implement massive changes, which can fix things if that somebody happens to be the right person (or group of persons) for the job. As a corollary, it would be possible to fix many "broken" state-run offices by enabling the right person(s) to implement massive changes. That's probably even preferable to privatisation in many cases: you still have the same risk that you didn't choose the right person for the job, but you eliminate the risk of them just cashing out.
- guelo 7y ago
  Washington State also has the most expensive DMV fees in the nation. It's not a coincidence.
  - 7y ago
s1artibartfast 7y ago
>People complain about how slow the DMV is, but if you ask them if they want their car registration fees increased to reduce waits, most will say "no". Despite one of the highest fees in the country, my DMV took 4 months to transfer a vehicle registration. At one point I spoke to an employee who told me they needed to go find the the appropriate microfiche to print the next form needed to continue processing.
- tabtab 7y ago
  Re: [Gov't worker] needed to go find the the appropriate microfiche At least hackers cannot delete it :-)
JDiculous 7y ago
That's because our government (referring to the USA) is extraordinarily inefficient with taxpayer money. My tax rate in NYC was something like 36% (not counting student loan payments and healthcare premiums), but where was this money going? We're paying practically the same tax rate as countries with universal healthcare, free/affordable universities, and strong safety nets, but we have none of the above. In my 5 years in NYC I saw the subway get progressively worse every year, while the homeless population exploded. I felt like that money might as well be getting flushed down the toilet. If I could more tangibly see where that money is going, then I'd probably feel differently. I think taxpayers should have some agency in choosing where their taxpayer money goes. Andrew Yang proposed something like this, and I love the idea: > "Each American should be able to direct 1% of their taxes to a specific project. During Revenue Day, these projects will be highlighted, showing what, exactly, America’s money was able to accomplish during the previous year. Initial profiles of the next year’s projects will also be announced so people can get excited for them." [1] I wouldn't mind paying taxes in the U.S. if I felt like they were being productively used. It's hard to feel that way. [1] https://www.yang2020.com/policies/making-taxes-fun/ https://www.yang2020.com/policies/making-taxes-fun/
- baggy_trough 7y ago
  It would be far better for the average citizen if the tax receipts were burnt in a giant dumpster rather than further the malignant tumor of a state that we are afflicted with.
  - DrScientist 7y ago
    Perhaps - but are the reasons for the US government dysfunction - because: 1. it has too much government 'civil service' ? 2. or too much private and corporate emasculation of effective government? ie the very sentiments you echo are directly supporting the agenda of 2 and not 1.
    - baggy_trough 7y ago
      I view it as the inevitable growth of a self perpetuating bureaucracy over decades in the absence of any significant constraining force.

by tabtab 7y ago

mcrad 7y ago

Hate is a strong word - perhaps these voters you speak of simply don't feel there is a very strong correlation between amount of taxes/fees paid, and services rendered.

stretchwithme 7y ago
And many who talk about how we should gladly pay our taxes get or figure they would get more than they pay in if everybody would happily pay as much as they possibly could. Not that the amount of taxes paid ever stopped a government from trying borrow and spend way more than that.
- tabtab 7y ago
  Re: Not that the amount of taxes paid ever stopped a government from trying borrow and spend way more than that. Government, taxes, and private industry are all tools of civilization. Tools are imperfect and the human managers & users are imperfect. One has to monitor all of them to keep them in decent working order. They won't just automatically run in an optimum mode if citizens don't keep a critical eye on them all.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  Governments don't "borrow and spend". Money is a political abstraction, not a tangible one. It is physically impossible for a government to run out of fiat money. The only things a government can run out of are faith in the future and internal and external trust. When either or both of those disappear, human animals panic and the economy stops working. Private enclosure of capital - which is equivalent to private enclosure of political and economic power - is far more likely to create that sort of breakdown than high taxes and generous public spending. (Effective - non-corrupt - public spending being equivalent to policy decisions that broaden and diffuse political power rather than concentrating it.) Effective generous public spending is actually a political negative feedback mechanism that damps wild oscillations in confidence, seeds future investment, and enhances political stability.
  - tabtab 7y ago
    In practice the gov't has to pretend like the money is real in order to prevent chaos. In fact both gov't and citizens have to pretend "properly" for it to work. It's a mutual agreement about how to represent the value of commerce. Laws are the same way: members of civilization have to mutually agree on how to create and follow the laws for them to "work". Civilization is the Mother of All Handshakes. If a large enough percentage of the population disagrees with the "agreements", anarchy happens. Modern technology and civilization are both inherently driven by standards: both written and de-facto.
  - stretchwithme 7y ago
    I think you're confusing money with resources. Money is a medium of exchange. The resources are real. Governments frequently consume more resources than they can purchase with the taxes they collect. Yes, they could just print all the money they could ever need. And when they do, inflation runs wild. Then a government cannot borrow in its own currency because no one will trust it. Or it must pay a high rate. The US government is in a unique situation. It's been able to print much more than a government normally could because it is the most trusted reserve currency in a rapidly globalizing world. Trillions of dollars are held overseas. And if the dollar loses that role, you will see a lot of inflation as those dollars return to the US. Even if it doesn't lose that role and the world just stops taking additional dollars, the US would have to print less to keep the same rate of inflation. Most governments don't fall into this category. And no country is in this category forever. A country's currency is really just another form of debt. And while it may never run out, the more it prints, the more it declines in value. It's not debt people can collect on, but the law of supply and demand will certainly collect on this debt. And it's also a tax, a tax on savings. And the country could remove dollars from circulation, thereby reducing this debt and reversing the decline in the value of savings.
    - duahncjak 7y ago
      Countries have held much higher debt levels than the US currently does without being the global reserve currency.
roenxi 7y ago
'Tax' is a simple word for a simple concept that spirals into a very complicated topic in practice. Through taxes the pacifist supports wars, the environmentalist industrialisation, the bigot equality and the individualist collectivism, the staunch right winger the salaries of the leftist politicians, etc, etc. Hating on the general concept of taxes isn't very productive but people are quite unhappy about the details. Politics involves painful compromises and tax is one of the pointy ends of politics. I'd hazard that taxes are usually raised to force people to support ideas that the individual taxpayers vehemently oppose - because otherwise presumably said taxpayer would already be paying for the service.
- erikpukinskis 7y ago
  > taxes are usually raised to force people to support.... Sorry, the first half of your sentence is too broad for the rest of it to possibly be true.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    Honestly I'm not sure your comment is any more helpful to me than just leaving a down vote. You havn't explained what you mean, there isn't an argument and I'm at a loss trying to follow your complaint. I could see that applying to the other part of the sentence - "ideas that the individual taxpayers vehemently oppose" - but the bit you've picked out is just literally true. Taxes are levied to finance schemes whether the taxpayer agrees with them or not.
    - erikpukinskis 7y ago
      Sorry, didn’t mean to be obtuse. Logically speaking, the assertion that 50%+ of taxes are driven by the same motivation seems impossible. Taxation is such a generic mechanism at work in so many different places, your assertion seems like a non-starter to me. Did you intend to make such a strong claim?
      - roenxi 7y ago
        That I can learn from. Thanks :) The intent was quite different, I didn't see a reading of that sentence that involved motivation but now that it has been pointed out I can see that it is the most obvious one. My intent was more about the outcomes of a tax but that wasn't expressed. What I wanted to say was something more like "No political decision has perfect support, and many cause stark divisions. But taxpayers financially support all the decisions taken and they will be vehemently opposed to some of the things they fund".

i_am_proteus 7y ago

Washington State has privatized the DMV for most non-ID-card-related transactions (titling, etc.). It's cheaper and faster than every fully-state-run DMV I've experienced.

tabtab 7y ago
Privatization is often a varied bag. Sometimes the contractor does a good job and sometimes a lousy job. Letting it be a directly gov't run process tends to get a consistent "C" grade, while privatization may get you an "A" sometimes and an "F" others. In other words, the variation is larger. This has also been true of schools and power utilities. This tends to happen because the owners are usually a relatively small group of people or an individual, and their individual personalities and changing goals will shape the quality of job they do. They may decide on a whim, "I'll milk out my fortune now and dump the problem on the public."
- atq2119 7y ago
  I wish more people understood this. Where privatisation does fix things, it's usually simply because the process of privatisation gives somebody the political capital to implement massive organizational change, and that somebody happened to be the right person for it. Conversely, when privatised infrastructure is a mess, it can be beneficial to have it taken over by the state. Again, the mere fact of doing so will give somebody the political capital to implement massive changes, which can fix things if that somebody happens to be the right person (or group of persons) for the job. As a corollary, it would be possible to fix many "broken" state-run offices by enabling the right person(s) to implement massive changes. That's probably even preferable to privatisation in many cases: you still have the same risk that you didn't choose the right person for the job, but you eliminate the risk of them just cashing out.
guelo 7y ago
Washington State also has the most expensive DMV fees in the nation. It's not a coincidence.
- 7y ago

s1artibartfast 7y ago

>People complain about how slow the DMV is, but if you ask them if they want their car registration fees increased to reduce waits, most will say "no". Despite one of the highest fees in the country, my DMV took 4 months to transfer a vehicle registration. At one point I spoke to an employee who told me they needed to go find the the appropriate microfiche to print the next form needed to continue processing.

tabtab 7y ago
Re: [Gov't worker] needed to go find the the appropriate microfiche At least hackers cannot delete it :-)

JDiculous 7y ago

That's because our government (referring to the USA) is extraordinarily inefficient with taxpayer money. My tax rate in NYC was something like 36% (not counting student loan payments and healthcare premiums), but where was this money going? We're paying practically the same tax rate as countries with universal healthcare, free/affordable universities, and strong safety nets, but we have none of the above. In my 5 years in NYC I saw the subway get progressively worse every year, while the homeless population exploded. I felt like that money might as well be getting flushed down the toilet. If I could more tangibly see where that money is going, then I'd probably feel differently. I think taxpayers should have some agency in choosing where their taxpayer money goes. Andrew Yang proposed something like this, and I love the idea: > "Each American should be able to direct 1% of their taxes to a specific project. During Revenue Day, these projects will be highlighted, showing what, exactly, America’s money was able to accomplish during the previous year. Initial profiles of the next year’s projects will also be announced so people can get excited for them." [1] I wouldn't mind paying taxes in the U.S. if I felt like they were being productively used. It's hard to feel that way. [1] https://www.yang2020.com/policies/making-taxes-fun/ https://www.yang2020.com/policies/making-taxes-fun/

baggy_trough 7y ago
It would be far better for the average citizen if the tax receipts were burnt in a giant dumpster rather than further the malignant tumor of a state that we are afflicted with.
- DrScientist 7y ago
  Perhaps - but are the reasons for the US government dysfunction - because: 1. it has too much government 'civil service' ? 2. or too much private and corporate emasculation of effective government? ie the very sentiments you echo are directly supporting the agenda of 2 and not 1.
  - baggy_trough 7y ago
    I view it as the inevitable growth of a self perpetuating bureaucracy over decades in the absence of any significant constraining force.