How high is 'too high' when we're talking taxes?

[Primetime21]

I read all the posts up to this point and many people, well some in particular, like to bring up Sweden as the be all and end all to taxes. How can you compare the US and Sweden for anything, look at the size,population, etc. What works in a smaller country may just not work in the US. Just as, what may work in the US won't work in Canada. If i country is more condensed it is easier to provide services, programs,etc. You can't keep comparing apples to oranges, but many on here seem to be quite good at that.

For all those people who think things are so good in Sweden, then why is the suicide rate actually higher than that in the US?

For those wanting a flat tax, what do we do with all the government workers out of a job. Hey i'm all for less gov't, but with a great deal of them out of work, would that make things any better?

 

[oldjones]

I think that's only optimal if the goal is the maximize tax revenue... shouldn't the goal be to fund government for as little as possible leaving the money to the people who made it.....

OTB

One might also say the goal should be to provide the best life for all, by combining incomes as well as spending them individually. One of the points common to all is that it depends on what you want from the tax-collector. And your 'as little as possible' standard would still be met by a government that did everything possible, and left you with nothing.

We can and should debate forever—we call it the democratic process—on what the tax-collector should do, but we keep disconnecting the payment process from it and saying, "too high" as if it was an absolute standard.

 

[binderman]

For those wanting a flat tax, what do we do with all the government workers out of a job. Hey i'm all for less gov't, but with a great deal of them out of work, would that make things any better?

um.. YES. they're bureaucrats, we need as little of them as humanly possible

 

[someone]

The goal should be to maximize production, or in other words, to maximize wealth.

I assume this means that you have read Posner. In many ways I am a fan of Posner’s academic work in law and economics (one of my main areas of research). He is an extremely smart guy and I have a lot of respect for him. He has made major contributions to advance our understanding of law. However, his argument that justice is wealth maximization goes a bit too far even for me.
In addition, maximization of production or wealth is not necessarily efficient. Everyone working 20 hours a day, 7 days a week might maximize production but it would not necessarily be efficient if people valued their lost leisure more than the value of additional output gained at the margin.

Interesting concept!
Know any countries that practice it?

Libertarians often cite Iceland as a historic example. There is much debate on whether it worked well in Iceland. However, I never really cared about the debate as I think there are reasons why no modern society has such a government.

 

[fuji]

OK, sure, so extend the notion to capture leisure time as a valued good. That makes things a bit more handwavy--my point really was to OTB to say that it's ridiculous to assert that minimizing government funding is any kind of goal.

We have an economy because we want to enjoy things such as goods and services--and leisure time--and we are best served by a system which maximizes that which we enjoy.

It may be that in some cases minimizing government funding is a means to that end--but if it is, it is a means to that end, not the goal.

In short my point was to reject his ideological nonsense.

 

[onthebottom]

Nope. That goal would be a purely ideological goal, and in many cases inefficient and literally counter-productive.

The goal should be to maximize production, or in other words, to maximize wealth. Sometimes the most efficient solution will be a publically funded solution, and in other cases the most efficient solution will be a private market solution.

Private financing, public financing, these are not goals in and of themselves, these are means to ends.

Oddly enough I agree.

There are some things only a government can do (criminal justice system for example) and doing those things very well (expensive) maximize wealth (one of the reasons the USD is the worlds reserve currency is our criminal justice system.

We can argue about what government should do (should the Federal Government in the US fund education?) and we can argue about how well those activities should be funded (our per student funding is in the top 3 in the world).

My argument is we should only fund those things only governments can do best (as it doesn't do anything very well) and fund those only to levels that provide incremental benefit.

A turtle tunnel in FL may not be the best use of Federal Funds.... one of a million examples.

OTB

 

[Mrbig1949]

Yes our per student funding is in the top group (this shifts year to year in a statistically insignificant range) but top group. As a result Canada has the world's highest rate of 25 yr olds with some form of post secondary completion. USA, Japan and Ireland have higher university completion rate but US universities range wildly from world class to basket weaving. This not only bodes well for individual happiness and fullfillment and citizenship but also underpins the new emerging economy. Would even more spent on education be worth it? You bet. You cannot go wrong spending on education from childcare to PHd. It is more cost effective to spend more rather than less.

 

[fuji]

I don't know though--if you wind up with a PhD driving a taxi cab, did you really get your moneys worth, if that PhD was subsidized by the taxpayer? Maybe the taxpayer could have delivered better value to the economy by sending that guy to driving school.

 

[JohnLarue]

/

One might also say the goal should be to provide the best life for all, by combining incomes as well as spending them individually. .

Yikes!
Absolutely no thank you

There is one primary reason we have enjoyed an ever increasing quality of life and are the beneficiaries of so many inventions and advances in medicine.
That reason is incentive (greed if you prefer that word)

Combining incomes would remove the incentive to take risks and innovation would grind to a halt.
Productivity improvements would disappear.
Why should I put in some extra effort or stay late at work if I know my paycheck will always be the same as the dog-fucker who does the absolute minimum?

Why should even thin about starting a new business (& hiring people) if I know that I will be taxed until my take home is the same as the guy who's primary mission in life is to do a little as possible.

Do you think Bill Gates would have taken the risks he did if he knew the end result was $50K a year for him?
You would not be viewing this post if that was the case

If Henry Ford had been taxed to a common income, you would be walking or riding a horse

The concept of equal share of the wealth among all sounds good as it should eliminate poverty and starvation.

They tried this concept in Russia for 70 years & it did not turn out so well.

The reality is excessive taxation undermines economic growth and makes all of us poorer.