This is broad and conceptual enough that it is probably going to hit on a few topics but certainly covers welfare, assorted forced charity and health care even if it doesn't mention concrete ideas, problems and or potential solutions.
About a year ago I had a conversation with my Grandfather. He was a very smart man and also fairly liberal. We were talking about health care and I being me was against the idea of increasing government involvement. My entire defense was a single question "When has the government every got involved in anything and made it better?". Grandpa mentioned busting up a few monopolies in the Robber Baron days but we both noted that the need to move that far back to a series of acts which were more regulatory than anything else says a lot. Little family story aside lets move forward.
1. I honestly do not believe government can do anything (excluding defense, some large regulation stuff, manage trade, etc) better than the private sector can do it. History has broadly speaking confirmed my belief.
2. Government is better at accomplishing less with more resources than anybody else. Simply put they have no incentive to prevent them from doing so.
3. As Thomas Sowell so eloquently said (more or less) "it is a fallacy to think we can afford anything collectively that we can not individually."
4. Take twenty people who were all going to get lunch at the local taco truck for example. If a burrito costs $5 it still costs the same if one person collects the cash and orders 20 burritos for a hundred bucks it is the same. (yeah maybe they could bargain and get a better deal but refer to #1 and#2) So the guy who is short on cash that day is still going to need to scrape together $5 to get a wonderful carne asada burrito. Unless.
6. What if they charged based on income instead of what you are going to receive via the commercial exchange. So the boss pays $25 instead of $5. I remember a joke about a bunch of friends who go out to get drinks which shows this wonderfully but in any case.
7. The first misconception about people who make or have real money is that they are somehow stupid and willing to ignore a % point here and there. While those with real money are certainly good at something which is well compensated they also pay attention to and care about their finances. They notice and they care a lot. These people will make choices to keep as much of their money as possible. They will invest in more business friendly places, use the tax code to their utmost advantage. They can potentially be less willing to have their money 'doing something' if the tax rate is high enough that it eliminates the potential gains which has all sorts of implications. Last but not least these people are the most mobile segment of our society. Often they run a business and could work from a different location should they desire to. This is significant when a high tax area is near a low tax area (CA/NV). Certainly they have the resources to move if so inclined and often already own multiple residences.
8. People often say that soaking the rich is a good idea. Setting aside the dilemma of people wanting to get something for nothing for a second rich people do not exactly garner a lot of sympathy. You need to care what happens to them and their money. I would not go as far as to say I believe in pure trickle down economics, honestly I do not know enough about the matter to say anything with authority. I can say that people with money are probably a big part of our overall economy in ways we might not think about. Excluding businesses which tends to target lower income folks (a $1 hot dog stand near a factory or a used tire lot) those with money are common and desirable customers. They can do things like getting a new expensive car every couple years or just get a new super fancy home entertainment system on a whim. They can do thinks like expensive home remodels which spread all sorts of money around the area. Don't know a single contractor whose bread and butter is $1,500 kitchen remodels but can think of a few who do the high end stuff. Also people with money will pay for services they probably do not NEED but all the same want. This is an area where many low income people are employed. People like house cleaners, gardeners, repair men and painters are a few areas where those with money are likely and regular customers.
9. Simply put the rich are not a big enough group that taxing them like crazy will let our nation socialize major areas without the cost being passed on to a significantly larger number of Americans. Americans whose incomes are not at all incredible. Lots of fairly rational people could argue that the rich paying a bit more to subsidise some services for those with the lowest incomes is not necessarily a horrible thing. The issue is at what point these subsidies become a serious problem. I do not know and it is impossible to speak in numbers about a conceptual situation though I think erring on the side of caution is probably wise.
15 comments:
The strategy of taxing the rich is what has gotten CA in so much crap. Our wise legislators decided to go after all of the Silicon Valley over-night million/billionaires. Hitting their bonus and stock option money with extra "wind fall" taxes.
Great idea - short term - when the economy is growing.
These numbnuts built our state expense structure around windfall tax receipts. Well, the bubble burst and the rich guys are leaving. The economy is in the tank, but the budget still requires all of that slush.
Now they just go after anyone that meets the elusive Rich definition. Tax the rich, and they'll go somewhere less taxing, so to speak.
TOM, Very interesting insight. I don't think rich folks would mind (more than anyone minds taxes in general) paying a couple grand a year for something like say, food stamps or homeless shelters. Then again they pay more in a % flat tax situation also. Heck if I have an answer aside from that punitive taxes cause problems.
TOR, I find it interesting that the only time I hear the words share or unfair - is when someone wants something someone else has.
I expect interest in extra-national refuges - like the floating city idea - to get more attention from the private sector.
In 1984, Minnesota was trying to attract, or just keep, businesses in Minneapolis. When asked what tax incentives the companies wanted - they were told none. The personal tax level (second only to California at the time) was too high, and none of the company executives were willing to tolerate that kind of punitive tax. Instead, Sioux Falls, South Dakota saw an influx of businesses wanting near the Minnesota markets - but wanted the lower tax levels of South Dakota. (Sioux Falls was a lovely town, lots of Prairie history and charm with a modest skyline and nice business climate.)
Canad wouldn't have to bend too far, to start looking really, really attractive to many American businesses and executives.
Being Canadian i don't know a lot about the American tax system. I also don't know in depth about our tax system. But i know about our health care system.
I am not a Michael Moore fan, but i did watch Sicko. Now i know he can spin a tale with the best of then, but some things were interesting in the film. He talked to a guy that had lost two fingers and because of his insurance had to choose which finger to have reconnected. That would never happen here.
I don't have to prove i have insurance. If i see a specialist and don't agree with him or want a second opinion, i don't have to ask if the HMO will allow it. I can see any doctor i want too.
I'm not saying our system is the best because it has flaws. For certain specialists there is longer wait times.
We all pay through our tax system so that lower income or people without a job can have health care.
I think Americans are so scared of the words socialized health care because for generations your leaders have drummed it into you that it's bad.
I think you should look at other countries and see how their systems work.
If you add up infant mortality rates, life expectancy rates, you'll find that Americans are behind other countries.
I am not trying to start a debate or piss anyone off, just saying that you should see how others do things and then if you think it's better, push for those changes to better your lives.
John
A few after thoughts. I am a conservative who believes that the government has too much control over our daily lives. But i also believe that we should ask for the system that works best for the people.
John
Brad K, Interesting point on which I will do some thinking. Great example.
John, You are right that the word socialization evokes strong feelings in people. I think we can cherry pick horror stories from both the US and Canadian health care systems.
Socialization SUCKS!!!
Yesterday on Glenn Beck's TV show, they had a guest from England on who was extremely complimentary of the way the *United State* grubment was set up in the beginning. To paraphrase him- I WISH we had your problems.
Once again, go back to authority- does the United State have the authority (and if so, where?) to establish a national health care system?
Anyone else recall Mark Steyn writing about the 10 month wait list for maternity sevices in Canada? heh.
The problem with soaking the rich is of all groups, they can easily leave the country with their wealth and begin in another country easily. Many of them already have homes in foreign countries - why stay here and get raped for something they have.
When they leave, the closed businesses they leave behind only helps the government have new cases of 'Got a dime to spare Joe?'
Ryan, that was a very good post. I would disagree with the notion that the State can do anything better than people acting with their own money (a capitalist using the term 'private sector' is like a pro-gun person using the term 'high capacity magazine.' Both were terms invented by the socialists.) I do understand why you don't see defense as an example, though I don't think it's true.
My main point about socialist defense is that if a group of individuals cannot figure out a way to defend themselves without taking money from other people at gunpoint, they don't really deserve to be able to defend themselves (or be defended.)
As for the rich, you have some excellent points. Rich people do, indeed, fund lots of other people. They have much more real wealth than others, so their wealth can actually be used for loans. Once the Federal Reserve collapses, and it is impossible to just create money out of thin air to provide mortgages and other loans, people may understand the value of savings, especially the savings of rich people.
The savings rate is finally in the black again. We saw a negative savings rate under the United State for a few years. People are learning, but unfortunately, they're also going to learn that inflation will punish them for saving. It's the backhand to the slap in the face they just took. People in a centralized bank economy are confused. Coming out of it is going to be a rocky road. But we have to. A system based on fraud and theft cannot survive forever. Not even the State.
I am in agreement with all nine of your thoughts. I would add that although I am fundamentally a libertarian, I believe that some governmental regulation of monopolies is absolutely necessary and that our current "big government" has failed in this regard. Take Big Oil: in the early 1900s when Roosevelt broke up the big oil companies, there were 7 or 8 corporations which were controlling prices. How many major oil companies do we now have? Is it a coincidence that gas prices always go up on weekends and holidays? Another example is the drug companies where Americans are routinely charged several times more for the same drug as what is charged in Canada. It is painful for this libertarian to admit there are instances where I believe government involment is necessary and really aggravating given the current government grab of power that they cannot at least address those areas.
SED
As another reader mentioned, it's easy to cherry pick "horror stories". I run an MRI center that has five offices and 8 MRI machines. My sister-in-law, who lives in Brampton, Ontario, needed an MRI and waited more than six months before she finally got fed up and came to NY and had one in my office.
Recently, she injured a knee. The ortho told her she had an ACL tear and suggested an ACL reconstruction. This is a MAJOR surgery with a 6-12 month recovery time. They did NOT do an MRI prior to this "suggestion". She finally got one, at 3am! in a local hospital. No ACL tear. She was saved an unnecessary surgery. The MRI is standard procedure in the US. NO othopedist would do a reconstruction without one. JMO, but I'll keep the system we have.
Ok, you mentioned the joke where a bunch of guys go for drinks. I think someone made a video out of it. Does this show what you were thinking of?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTwxqgVvEyU
For another interesting perspective, check out "The Myth Of the Robber Barons", by Burton Folsom.
As far as how we take take of those in need. History shows that the more a government takes from one group of people to help the "poor" the larger the percentage of the people become "poor." Rome is a great example of how having a welfare state can weaken the people as a whole.
My contention is that people take care of each other better when the government is not involved.
I also believe we have a responsibility to take care of those around us.
I made a video a little while back that expresses my views on using imposing taxes for welfare use. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eBo-aTqO7g Feel free to cut out this last paragraph if you thing I'm being inappropriate.
Margaret Thatcher said it best:
"They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."
It's true Ryan that we can pick horror stories from both systems, but have you ever researched other systems to see how they work?
I know we can post stats and argue them until we are blue in the face, but i'll just post a few and maybe it'll give people food for thought.
According to the CIA world factbook the US is 45th in the world for infant mortality and 32nd according to the UN.
The CIA factbook ranks the US at 45th in the world for life expectancy.
The US is one of the most advanced countries in the world and according to the numbers i found this is unexceptable.
I know there are a lot of factors for this, but one of the biggest is how your health care system is run. As a population you should be demanding a better system and to do this you have to research what others are doing and find the best model.
John
John, about your comments right under 3Cankeep - I think it's important to consider why those stats are the way they are. Is it the quality of our healthcare, or is is it the American lifestyle? We drive a lot more cars, we can afford more health hazardous vices, we (as a nation) eat an obscene portion of the world's food - is that the healthcare system's fault or ours?
As to infant mortality, what are the leading causes of death? I know that midwife attended and home birth are much more common in many of the countries that have a lower infant mortality rate.
Are folks in other healthcare systems getting better care faster than they do here in the U.S.?
Or are there other factors that affect those mortality/longevity numbers?
It seems to me that as a population we are clamoring for a better system when we should be attempting to live healthier lifestyles.
Personal responsibility and all that.
Post a Comment