3 ms·

I think you're on to something here. There's this sliding scale ranging from "lower taxes, fewer public services" to "higher taxes, more public services". Real

by donw 6y ago

I think you're on to something here. There's this sliding scale ranging from "lower taxes, fewer public services" to "higher taxes, more public services". Really, anything on that spectrum is going to be workable. Corruption is where sliding that scale towards "higher taxes" results in most of the additional money finding its way to the pockets of various bureaucrats and their friends, as opposed to being used to deliver services-as-promised.

spiralx 6y ago
"Lower taxes, fewer public services" means more scope for corruption from the private sector though, so I don't see there being any simple relationship between taxation and corruption. World corruption rankings seem to imply the opposite to what you're saying in fact. https://www.transparency.org/en/news/cpi-2020-global-highlights https://www.transparency.org/en/news/cpi-2020-global-highlig... None of the top six there are countries you would describe as having "lower taxes, fewer public services".
- donw 6y ago
  Switzerland and Singapore are both on that list, and fit the bill for "lower taxes, fewer public services".
- zo1 6y ago
  Lower taxes = less mandatory diversion of people's money to corrupt activities. With corrupt private companies you are more likely able to just "withdraw" or stay away from them. That is not at all the case with state-level corruption which requires you to actually flee the country, emigrate or vote in new non-corrupt politicians, some of which are next to impossible for a good chunk of people.
  - spiralx 6y ago
    That's a lot of assumptions taken as an article of faith i.e. higher taxation = higher corruption and the ability to "avoid" private sector corruption as if you were perfectly aware of its existence and had non-corrupt alternatives to switch to. I'm not a libertarian and don't buy those premises, certainly not without any evidence.
    - zo1 6y ago
      I didn't say that higher taxation implies higher corruption. You said: ""Lower taxes, fewer public services" means more scope for corruption from the private sector though. I.e. implying that lowering taxes and public services simply shifts the corruption to the "private sector" as if it's just shifting the problem around and is inescapable. Or that it leaves a gap to which "private sector corruption" can slide into. To which I responded by saying that at least the [increase] in corruption can be avoided more easily if said corruption is in the private sector as opposed to in the government. So even if we're just shifting the corruption to the private sector, it's still better overall because we can more easily address/avoid it than we would be able to with a government. The point stands whether I am aware of the private-sector corruption or not, and also stands whether there are alternatives within the private sector to switch to because one can just choose to not participate (barring certain necessary industries, I guess)

by donw 6y ago

spiralx 6y ago

"Lower taxes, fewer public services" means more scope for corruption from the private sector though, so I don't see there being any simple relationship between taxation and corruption. World corruption rankings seem to imply the opposite to what you're saying in fact. https://www.transparency.org/en/news/cpi-2020-global-highlights https://www.transparency.org/en/news/cpi-2020-global-highlig... None of the top six there are countries you would describe as having "lower taxes, fewer public services".

donw 6y ago
Switzerland and Singapore are both on that list, and fit the bill for "lower taxes, fewer public services".
zo1 6y ago
Lower taxes = less mandatory diversion of people's money to corrupt activities. With corrupt private companies you are more likely able to just "withdraw" or stay away from them. That is not at all the case with state-level corruption which requires you to actually flee the country, emigrate or vote in new non-corrupt politicians, some of which are next to impossible for a good chunk of people.
- spiralx 6y ago
  That's a lot of assumptions taken as an article of faith i.e. higher taxation = higher corruption and the ability to "avoid" private sector corruption as if you were perfectly aware of its existence and had non-corrupt alternatives to switch to. I'm not a libertarian and don't buy those premises, certainly not without any evidence.
  - zo1 6y ago
    I didn't say that higher taxation implies higher corruption. You said: ""Lower taxes, fewer public services" means more scope for corruption from the private sector though. I.e. implying that lowering taxes and public services simply shifts the corruption to the "private sector" as if it's just shifting the problem around and is inescapable. Or that it leaves a gap to which "private sector corruption" can slide into. To which I responded by saying that at least the [increase] in corruption can be avoided more easily if said corruption is in the private sector as opposed to in the government. So even if we're just shifting the corruption to the private sector, it's still better overall because we can more easily address/avoid it than we would be able to with a government. The point stands whether I am aware of the private-sector corruption or not, and also stands whether there are alternatives within the private sector to switch to because one can just choose to not participate (barring certain necessary industries, I guess)