3 ms·

You are almost right but you are neglecting a major factor: the uneven distribution of wealth. Simple example: Lets say I make 100k but 30k goes to "taxes", m

You are almost right but you are neglecting a major factor: the uneven distribution of wealth. Simple example: Lets say I make 100k but 30k goes to "taxes", meant to be spent on public utilities that (more or less) benefit me, such as roads, schools, infrastructure, etc. However, of that 30k, 10k goes into the pockets of executive bankers (golden parachutes, salaries, etc) or privately held companies. This does not really benefit me - I was expecting that money to go towards things that benefit me. That money will go back into the economy, but not to my (direct) benefit -- the bank execs will spend it on things that probably only benefit them. Only part of it will go back to taxes (whatever taxes the execs pay on their golden parachutes, salaries, etc). So, not only is my money being spent on things that do not benefit me, but it is rewarding the reckless behavior of bank executives. In shorter words: I am paying 30k to the government, I expect them to use that 30k to provide services that benefit everybody equally, not reward a few reckless bank execs.

yummyfajitas 15y ago
Where did you get the idea that the government would be spending your $30k on public utilities? Most of your $30k would merely be taken and redistributed to other people. Another substantial chunk would be devoted to defending Europe from the Soviets/Islamists/whoever the military is actually set up to protect. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2008_US.html http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2008_US.html I'm not sure why you feel more valuable to to take money from the banker and give it to old people than to allow the banker to invest in Netflix/Walmart/other businesses that provide value to millions of people. Could you explain?
- gavanwoolery 15y ago
  Yes, I think you still miss the point though: Lets say 10k goes to this banker, and he spends it on Netflix/Wallmart/etc. That mostly benefits HIM. Really, I should get to spend that 10k on Wallmart/Netflix/etc. so that it benefits ME. Both cases benefit the economy, but the banker benefits more if he spends the money. In otherwords, money that I could spend on myself to boost the economy is instead being given to someone else who does not deserve it. Does that make sense? In general, I am for a SMALL government - that means I would prefer that taxes be minimized, and whatever can be privatized should be. I do not support our government's excessive defense budget (although I do support the troops, who actually get very little of the overall defense budget).
  - yummyfajitas 15y ago
    That mostly benefits HIM. Really, I should get to spend that 10k on Wallmart/Netflix/etc. so that it benefits ME. If you are advocating for reducing taxation and redistribution, I agree with you. I was merely arguing against the dichotomy implicitly put forth by the author - either the government spends the money, or else it is wasted.
- arethuza 15y ago
  "defending Europe" I have to point out that a lot of Europeans were never very happy with being "defended" in the manner you describe. If America wanted to removed bases from Europe to save money I think that would be sensible for both Europe and the United States.

yummyfajitas 15y ago

Where did you get the idea that the government would be spending your $30k on public utilities? Most of your $30k would merely be taken and redistributed to other people. Another substantial chunk would be devoted to defending Europe from the Soviets/Islamists/whoever the military is actually set up to protect. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2008_US.html http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2008_US.html I'm not sure why you feel more valuable to to take money from the banker and give it to old people than to allow the banker to invest in Netflix/Walmart/other businesses that provide value to millions of people. Could you explain?

gavanwoolery 15y ago
Yes, I think you still miss the point though: Lets say 10k goes to this banker, and he spends it on Netflix/Wallmart/etc. That mostly benefits HIM. Really, I should get to spend that 10k on Wallmart/Netflix/etc. so that it benefits ME. Both cases benefit the economy, but the banker benefits more if he spends the money. In otherwords, money that I could spend on myself to boost the economy is instead being given to someone else who does not deserve it. Does that make sense? In general, I am for a SMALL government - that means I would prefer that taxes be minimized, and whatever can be privatized should be. I do not support our government's excessive defense budget (although I do support the troops, who actually get very little of the overall defense budget).
- yummyfajitas 15y ago
  That mostly benefits HIM. Really, I should get to spend that 10k on Wallmart/Netflix/etc. so that it benefits ME. If you are advocating for reducing taxation and redistribution, I agree with you. I was merely arguing against the dichotomy implicitly put forth by the author - either the government spends the money, or else it is wasted.
arethuza 15y ago
"defending Europe" I have to point out that a lot of Europeans were never very happy with being "defended" in the manner you describe. If America wanted to removed bases from Europe to save money I think that would be sensible for both Europe and the United States.