9 ms·
Philosophically, I like public roads, hospitals, schools, policing, rubbish collection, etc.
by louthy 3y ago
Philosophically, I like public roads, hospitals, schools, policing, rubbish collection, etc.
- Eumenes 3y agoPhilosophically, if those services deteriorate beyond repair and are riff with corruption/nepotism, the people have the right to object, by any means necessary. The efficiency of our tax dollars, in the US at least, is prob very low. I wonder for every $1 of tax revenue collected, how much of that is used for actual public good. 20%?
- louthy 3y ago> Philosophically, if those services deteriorate beyond repair and are riff with corruption/nepotism, the people have the right to object, by any means necessary. Is that a taxation problem or a corruption problem? Fix the corruption first.
- Eumenes 3y agoExcessive capital in the hands of centralized government breeds corruption. They get to send $100s of millions, sometimes billions, to corporations and foreign nations. This leads to bribery and kickbacks. The US has people in government who are worth $100s of millions of dollars off salaries that would be entry level in Silicon Valley.
- louthy 3y ago> This leads to bribery and kickback Which is illegal in most countries. Police the illegality (you probably need a well funded police force for that) and the corruption will reduce significantly. It’s true that not all corruption can be stopped. But if you think privatising everything will make your dollars more efficient then you’re living in a fantasy world. Look at the mess that is the US healthcare system for a start: twice as expensive as every other country’s healthcare system and certainly not the best
- mcpackieh 3y ago> Police the illegality (you probably need a well funded police force for that) and the corruption will reduce significantly. How do you bootstrap non-corrupt police/prosecutors/judges/legislators to fight corruption, and how do you prevent the corrupt system from corrupting those people as well? If fighting corruption is so straight forward as merely giving money to police and telling them to enforce laws, then why do most countries around the world fail at it? Surely it's not for want of somebody having the idea to simply enforce anti-corruption laws. The idea is easy, but the idea is not the solution itself. And I do mean most. Look at this map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index#/media/File:Countries_by_Corruption_Perceptions_Index_(2022).svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index#/... Several of the countries colored green on that map are generally acknowledged to be pretty damn corrupt, yet most are even worse.
- anigbrowl 3y agoThe US does have many rich people in government, but it's not accurate to suggest that they got rich by being part of the government. Rather, the cost of running electoral campaigns is so high that it selects for people who are already rich from private enterprise (with highly variable degrees of legitimacy). You are putting the cart before the horse, although it is also true that members of Congress are largely exempted from insider trading rules and thus some of them further exploit their position (vs handing their wealth over to a trust administered by some neutral third party). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_wealth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the...
- lawlessone 3y ago> The US has people in government who are worth $100s of millions of dollars off salaries that would be entry level in Silicon Valley. That's a good argument to pay them more. If we paid politicians nothing the only people that would be politicians would be those wealthy enough to pursue it as a hobby
- mcpackieh 3y agoHow do you fix corruption without cutting off the money feeding/rewarding it?
- danpalmer 3y agoThat seems like an implementation issue rather than a philosophical issue? Tax could be spent with high efficiency, and is in other countries with less bureaucracy and corruption. I wouldn't throw out the idea of income tax because the US happens to have a poor system. The same could be said for democracy, the US having a fairly poor implementation, but no one is seriously suggesting the US stop being a democracy.
- Eumenes 3y agoI'd prefer to defund the federal government and focus on local/regional systems. I'm much more likely to support my neighbor and local communities over putting 20-30% of my income to be divided up in Washington, 1000s of miles away.
- danpalmer 3y agoThe emotional attachment you're talking about is certainly true. This is why supposedly systems of government work best around ~8m citizens. Perhaps a local income tax would work better? Property/land taxes can also be locally administered and skew towards those who can afford it rather than those who can't.
- oceanplexian 3y agoThe USA had all of those things before the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913.
- TulliusCicero 3y agoWe had waaayyyyy less of them.
- sneak 3y agoWe also had way fewer people. The system scales with the same people doing the same work for the same money, with or without taxes. Roads, schools, and hospitals existed before taxes, and they will exist after them.
- TulliusCicero 3y agoNo, we had far less per capita. Medical services are far more commonly used now than in 1913, partially because we have a lot more of them that are actually useful.
- vkou 3y agoRoads were paid either by taxes, or by forced labour, schools were paid for by church tithes[1] or were only available for the rich, but I'll give you hospitals. [1] AKA taxes.
- notahacker 3y agoand also state taxes on income or pretty close proxies thereof. I'm not sure anyone wants 1913 roads, hospitals or access to schooling either.
- lawlessone 3y agoThey outlawed slavery in 1865. Theres about 48 years between these two things. Many states raised income via property taxes which also included taxes on slaves. I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest slavery subsidized not having an income tax.
- 3y ago
- jeofken 3y agoWhen I moved from a country with public, so called “free” healthcare (Sweden) to one with private health care (CH) where I’m a customer rather than a “user”, I was blown away. I can see a doctor tomorrow, I can select which language (maybe higher chance to find a Swedish-speaking doctor here ngl), there are not the crazy bureaucracy and endless hours waiting in a phone queue, and I’m welcomed to my doctors office with a cup of coffee. Being a customer rather than a nuisance is great! It’s like upgrading from waiting in line for a Trabant to getting a Volvo! My health insurance here is also cheaper than the one I paid in Sweden (technically tax to the Region/Län).
- sneak 3y agoIt turns out that without competition there is zero incentive whatsoever to be efficient with resources. Who cares, it’s not your money! It’s simple game theory. When you’re the only game in town, you can charge as much as you want, and provide as little service as you wish.
- rqtwteye 3y agoCome to the US and you will not be treated as customer but as a sucker.
- toast0 3y agoMost of the payment for healthcare (in the US) comes from insurance companies and government health coverage. It's no surprise that the providers pay more attention to those agencies than the patients. If you want to be treated as a customer, you can use one of the concierge services, although paying for that in addition to insurance would make me feel like a sucker, too.
- jeofken 3y agoIsn’t this whole thing about Americans health insurance being tied to their jobs a side effect of some crazy WW2 regulation? Not sure how it works over there
- deleted 3y ago
- carlosjobim 3y agoAnd isn't it splendid to be able to force labourers to pay those thing for your convenience, since they have no choice but to work to support themselves?