The job of a politician boils down to one simple task: to reduce the tax rate

[anotherneil]

We also have a 'free market' where the wealthiest and largest corporations are able to buy favorable government policies to keep the competition down and ensure profits, which are paid for from tax revenues.

No, that's not a free market system; what you're describing is actually crony capitalism.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

No, that's not a free market system; what you're describing is actually crony capitalism.

Yes, and that's what happens in unfettered capitalism...and its something to be fought against using non-market means, because there is no market force to stop or control it

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, and that's what happens in unfettered capitalism...and its something to be fought against using non-market means, because there is no market force to stop or control it

Sounds like @anotherneil hasn't spent much time thinking about how "free" he would be if he was born in a company town back in the days before proper labour laws.

 

[anotherneil]

Your rationale presumes that everyone would then be able to afford the services they need to have a decent life, but that is not an outcome that can be genuinely expected.

Ok, can you elaborate on this? If your point is that we've stepped in something and it's hard to get out of it, then I may agree with that. This implies that we ought to avoid stepping in such things, in the future.

I won't argue that it would be easy to fix, but just like that bridge that collapsed in Baltimore from being struck by a container ship, it's something that must be fixed, because in the mean time, that regular highway traffic can't get across that bridge & those shipping lanes are restricted, which affects the services that those ships that need to pass through that channel; there's also the jobs at those docks or ports, and the effect that propagates across the rest of the nation & even internationally.

I can only imagine how much better our society here in the US would be had it not been for wasteful & inefficient overhead that goes with higher taxes & that's just scratching the surface.

 

[anotherneil]

Nothing wrong with socialism, I'd scrap the monarchy tomorrow if I could.
The mess with our privatised services was not brought about by socialism.

There's nothing right about socialism. It scales up terribly & it creates a very large class of poor people who have to ration, wait in long lines, need permission from the government to do so many things (if they're not banned), and don't have access to many important services in a timely manner (or at all) in ways that don't exist in societies with a free market.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok, can you elaborate on this? If your point is that we've stepped in something and it's hard to get out of it, then I may agree with that. This implies that we ought to avoid stepping in such things, in the future.

I won't argue that it would be easy to fix, but just like that bridge that collapsed in Baltimore from being struck by a container ship, it's something that must be fixed, because in the mean time, that regular highway traffic can't get across that bridge & those shipping lanes are restricted, which affects the services that those ships that need to pass through that channel; there's also the jobs at those docks or ports, and the effect that propagates across the rest of the nation & even internationally.

I can only imagine how much better our society here in the US would be had it not been for wasteful & inefficient overhead that goes with higher taxes & that's just scratching the surface.

They started building the Francis Scott Key Bridge in 1972. Before then, Baltimore Harbour had been just as much of a barrier as it is now, but the invisible hand of the market never created a way to cross it. What makes you think the free market would fix the problem now?

For starters, can you identify any entity that:

- has the means to build a new bridge, and
- has enough ability to profit off a new bridge that they would get a reasonable ROI?

 

[Eddi]

There's nothing right about socialism.

Depends on what you mean by "socialism"

It seems like your definition is based on the Soviet experience rather than the Western European experience

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Straw man.

Rubbish. You claimed, in your own words, "The job of a politician boils down to one simple task, which to reduce the tax rate." If every politician does that, then evenually the tax rate must reduce to near nothing. Perpetual reduction has a tendency towards zero. Surely you have enough arithmetical skills to work that out.

Thus my post was not a "strawman," but an observation of the results to which your dictum must eventually lead.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There's nothing right about socialism. It scales up terribly & it creates a very large class of poor people who have to ration, wait in long lines, need permission from the government to do so many things (if they're not banned), and don't have access to many important services in a timely manner (or at all) in ways that don't exist in societies with a free market.

You realize all this happens under a free market too, right? The only difference is who you ask permission from.

 

[anotherneil]

Yes, executive services such as health, utilities, education, transport, welfare etc. etc.

Politicians don't provide health; hospitals with doctors, nurses, healthcare techs, etc. do.

Utilities are also private or non-governmental companies, with some exceptions. How many power plants does the government own & operate here in the US? Even in municipalities that handle utilities, people are still being sent a bill separate from a tax bill.

There is such a thing as private schools & even with public universities, students still have to pay for tuition, room, and board separately from having to pay taxes. Politicians aren't teachers & teachers aren't politicians. How well are K-12 public schools performing & if you're for a free market system, then you'd be for school vouchers.

What do you mean transport, do you mean "muh roads" (LOL)? Personally I happen to be for publicly owned roads, if it's at the local level (or state for interstate highways). I'm opposed to roads being exclusively privately owned, because otherwise that places people at the mercy of whoever owns the roads privately. If your neighbors own the roads you need to use to get out of the neighborhood or town and the block you in, then they in effect have you held hostage on your own property. Anyhow, people who own & operate vehicles for "transport" have to pay a separate fees like property tax for their vehicles and on fuel to maintain the roadways.

What do you mean by welfare? You mean like welfare checks, food stamps, that sort of thing? I happen to be for a dividend-based UBI, and I don't agree with some sort of notion that it's some sort of socialist redistribution of wealth; I see it as compensation for property rights (i.e., compensation for being "walled off" from having access to natural or environmental resources).

In any case, it's still possible to lower taxes, and for government for still operate and perform effectively, if voters demand from their politicians that they focus on making things more efficient.

 

[anotherneil]

Because CERTAINLY the experiences of people in other countries can have NO MEANING OR RELEVANCE for ANYONE...

Well, then explain and articulate what point you want to make, rather than making vague, abstract statements. Until then, I'm simply going to move on.

 

[anotherneil]

Imposing taxes on small businesses is a big mistake.
.

They should still pay taxes, just not as much as large businesses.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Well, then explain and articulate what point you want to make, rather than making vague, abstract statements. Until then, I'm simply going to move on.

You want to talk in general...then you want to specify what is really happening or not happening...then you want to limit it to only the US, because conditions in other nations are not the same...and then...

 

[Altfish]

There's nothing right about socialism. It scales up terribly & it creates a very large class of poor people who have to ration, wait in long lines, need permission from the government to do so many things (if they're not banned), and don't have access to many important services in a timely manner (or at all) in ways that don't exist in societies with a free market.

Europe is doing fine, it is always the right wing governments that ruin the country. Just look at the state of my country (UK) after 14-years of a right wing Tory Party

 

[anotherneil]

I am more concerned with what they do with the tax money they get.
When I worked in Australia, tax rates were high but I didn't mind. They provided healthcare, education, child welfare. One could see how that money went to benefit the people of Australia.

Kind of like HOAs. Some HOAs provide a lot of benefits. Others simply provide a lot of rules and restrictions. Obviously some folks think in terms of the former and some in terms of the latter.

I've no problem of an increased tax rate for identifiable benefits. However were increased taxes provide no identifiable benefits or simply end up increasing non-beneficial regulations I'm not happy with.

Yes, that's the underlying issue; how is that tax money being spent?

There's a distinction between Australia and the US in population density (more than 10x in the US) and GDP (around 15x in the US), in which case the question would be - would things change in Australia if they reached US levels?

 

[Eddi]

Politicians don't provide health; hospitals with doctors, nurses, healthcare techs, etc. do.

Politicians run the government who controls the state and all those things I mentioned should be provided by the state, for the good of the public

Utilities should be publicly owned, the job of a water company should be to provide water, not turn a profit, and the job of electrical companies should be to provide electricity, not turn a profit

The same goes for public transport, the job of rail companies should be to lay on trains, not turn a profit

And privatising health care and education would be utter madness and very much against the public interest

Freedom comes in the form of rights and there is such a thing as Social Rights

I suggest you look into a guy called TH Marshall, a sociologist who has much to say about citizenship

 

[anotherneil]

Yes, and that's what happens in unfettered capitalism...and its something to be fought against using non-market means, because there is no market force to stop or control it

Ok; now let's get back to the OP issue; how is voters asking politicians to cut their taxes any different from that in terms of underlying issues?

 

[anotherneil]

Sounds like @anotherneil hasn't spent much time thinking about how "free" he would be if he was born in a company town back in the days before proper labour laws.

Do such towns still exist? Actually that's an interesting question considering the state of inner city communities.

Assuming such towns no longer exist, what does that have to do with taxes being as high as they are now? You can prevent such towns and still have much lower taxes.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Ok; now let's get back to the OP issue; how is voters asking politicians to cut their taxes any different from that in terms of underlying issues?

How would cutting taxes by itself affect the underlying/existing cronyism?

Yes, that's the underlying issue; how is that tax money being spent?

How does cutting taxes by itself change how that tax money is being spent?

 

[Stevicus]

The job of a politician boils down to one simple task, which to reduce the tax rate; an alternative would be to reimburse taxpayers unspent revenue & this includes actively looking for ways to save on costs, cut spending, etc.

People are always looking to save money, and in a free market, people can get things better, faster, and cheaper than they could without a free market. This is because a free market means competition is possible; this is the basic essence of a free market (there are other aspects to a free market, such as not being forced by the government to purchase a good or service).

When an engineer is designing a consumer product, the essence of their goal is to do more with less (e.g. a car that has certain features, performance, mileage per gallon of fuel, safety, etc. that costs the same or less than the competitor's car).

In a similar sense, this is what political candidates running for office actually ought to be doing with regard to tax rates, and we - as voters - can demand and expect politicians to compete for our votes by lowering the tax rate.

One might wonder, why don't we seem to be doing this? I think the answer is that they simply manage to slip by this without people noticing, partially because political parties monopolize and dominate the political scene, partially because the media very heavily controls the political "focus" - by which I mainly mean that they pick the issues and candidates to focus on or to ignore, and have huge sway on voters this way, and partly by keeping the focus on this farce of a narrative about making the super rich pay their fair share (they have way too much control over politicians - so much that such a thing isn't going to happen).

The only thing that really matters to voters who aren't rich and have to pay a big chunk of what they earned and what they have to pay for goods & services is how much of their own money they have to give up to pay taxes, not what some nameless, faceless super rich person who's supposedly not paying their "fair share" has to give up. This is a red herring to try to keep people from looking at what they have to pay in taxes out of their own pockets (or withheld, etc.).

Political candidates running for public office can and will compete with each other to reduce the tax rate; the catch is simply that the voters have to make this demand known to them.

There are ways of reducing the tax rates if the government is willing to impose price controls. For example, a big campaign issue has been about healthcare and politicians wringing their hands about wanting to keep prescription drug prices and healthcare prices down. The government spends a lot of money on healthcare, so if they imposed price controls, the price could come down and both the taxpayers and healthcare consumers could reap enormous savings. (It would be an ever greater savings if government took over complete ownership of the entire healthcare industry.)

Likewise for the Defense Department. If the government took control of it rather than allowing private sector contractors to extract enormous profits, the cost would be much lower.

Same for roads, bridges, and other infrastructure. If the government took over those tasks themselves, rather than contracting it out to the private sector just so capitalists can make more money, then there would be even more savings of the taxpayer's money.