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

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do such towns still exist?

In the West, they've generally been regulated out of existence. If we only had market forces, they'd 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?

Nothing. Why would those things be linked?

You can prevent such towns and still have much lower taxes.

Regulation and government action is the way to prevent them.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

What do you mean by "equity between people"? Should someone who makes $36,000/year pay the same in taxes as someone who makes $10,000,000/year? What if the tax comes out to $1,000,000 - the individual making $10,000,000/year can pay that, but it's way more than the individual making $36,000/year makes in a year (uh...obviously).

Equitable

equitable
ĕk′wĭ-tə-bəl
adjective
Showing or characterized by equity; just and fair. synonym: fair.
Of or relating to rights historically enforced in courts of equity.
Resolved not simply according to the strict letter of the law but in accordance with principles of substantial justice and the unique facts of the case.

It does not mean equal, it implies fairness in the burden of the tax and affordability.

 

[anotherneil]

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?

Right now, the collapsed bridge and the container ship stuck under it are an obstruction to other large ships trying to get in & out of there, and prior to the construction of the bridge and its collapse, there was no such obstruction to large ships.

I suppose by "means" you're referring to paying for it, and that's something that's currently being litigated or negotiated with the parties involved. Last time I heard something about it on the news, a company, or the companies, involved in its ownership or operation (and maybe the insurance companies involved) are trying to get their liability capped at something like $40 million; the price tag is probably going to be over the $ billion mark. Those companies may have to foot the bill, since it was their ship that broke the bridge. Biden has already pledged federal funding to help pay for its reconstruction, because the federal pockets are quite deep, and it's to the benefit of the federal government to have it fixed. I don't know if there was a toll for that bridge, but I've driven through Baltimore and it does have tolls.

The profit comes from the goods and services that the taxpayers can get for less, just like any other bridge.

 

[Nakosis]

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?

One thing is there would certainly be a larger tax base. Taxes would be distributed over a larger population. Your population grows, your tax revenue grows which hopefully can keep pace with the benefits being provided.

However there would be a problem in the US with diversity. The greater the diversity the more diverse what people see as beneficial. When this outgrows the tax revenue you either have to find a way to increase that revenue or pick and choose who get the benefit from available tax money.

This makes more diverse countries face unique problems in deciding how to gain and spend that tax revenue.

This is a problem NY is now facing. They design a set of benefits for a specific diversity of population. As the diversity has increased lately they are no longer able to afford the same level of benefits. A politician has to decide where to focus the benefits the available resources is able to provide.

So you end up with politicians catering to special interests to stay in office.

 

[anotherneil]

Depends on what you mean by "socialism"

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

What's the difference, at least in terms of economics? The Soviet experience simply made the problems stand out more obviously since it was so heavy handed with its authoritarianism to impose it. The Western European experience may be a watered down version, but watered down poison is still not good for health.

 

[anotherneil]

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.

Your overall essay was a straw man.

Private companies have brought the cost of products down, yet they still make a profit & if private companies can do this, then so can politicians.

I didn't specify an amount or percentage to reduce taxes, or some sort of deadline to reach a 0% tax rate; in a way you're putting words in my mouth.

It just so happens, however, that there actually are ways to bring down the tax rate to 0%. For example, tariffs is one. Another could be to only have businesses or investors pay taxes.

Look into a concept called a post-scarcity society. The idea there is that automation, robotics, and other advancements in technology would eliminate the need for people to work in order to access resources, and in general, there would no longer be a need for money, trade, or taxes.

 

[sun rise]

 

[Eddi]

What's the difference, at least in terms of economics? The Soviet experience simply made the problems stand out more obviously since it was so heavy handed with its authoritarianism to impose it. The Western European experience may be a watered down version, but watered down poison is still not good for health.

Yeah, because The Beveridge Report was unmitigated tyranny

Beveridge Report - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

And universal health care is authoritarian too!

And labour rights, workplace safety and the minimum wage is poison!

Why do you place the interests of the very rich over those of the general public?

 

[anotherneil]

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

No, that's not the only difference & for some things you don't need to ask anyone for permission, such as to travel a certain distance away from your home, to move, to leave the country - just to name a few examples. The economic differences are in how much someone has to ration, or wait in line, etc.

 

[anotherneil]

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...

This thread isn't about me; I don't matter. The issue of the OP topic is what does matter.

 

[Koldo]

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.

Let me provide a very simple example to illustrate my point.

Imagine you live in a country where health services are not provided unless you can afford them. The young healthy working class, and the rich, wouldn't have much of a problem getting by. But what about everyone else?

 

[sun rise]

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

I get much better health care at a lower cost with Medicare than I ever did with for-profit health care companies that were all into maximizing profits by screwing patients to the extent allowed by law. I chose my supplemental insurance based on government mandated coverage levels (I have 'G') and only have to pay a known premium and a small deductible at the beginning of every year.

The horror stories about regular health care in the US are very well known and include much worse outcomes compared to other countries. United States: #11 in the 2022 World Index of Healthcare Innovation

 

[anotherneil]

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

I have been working in the IT department of the healthcare industry for a long time; during that time I have had some rather interesting conversations with other healthcare staff, including doctors, nurses, pharmacists, etc.

One time I had a conversation with a nurse who said he went to observe the healthcare system in the UK. I recall him telling me about a dirty trick they play to create false statistics, which is that they make patients wait to be counted somehow, in order to cook the numbers & make it appear that their socialized healthcare system was performing ok, things are running smoothly, etc. I don't remember the exact details, but essentially it involved making patients wait before being admitted into the waiting room (or wherever the threshold was for counting patients, starting the "wait time" clock, etc.), or something to that effect - if I'm remembering accurately or correctly. That's fraud & false advertising; a private company could get charged with a crime or sued for that type of stuff.

Is that the result of a free market or right wing Tory Party, or is that the true face of socialism?

 

[anotherneil]

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

How did that work out for the Soviet Union? How's that working out for places like Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, etc?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Right now, the collapsed bridge and the container ship stuck under it are an obstruction to other large ships trying to get in & out of there, and prior to the construction of the bridge and its collapse, there was no such obstruction to large ships.

Hauling the wreckage out of the way doesn't require building a new bridge.

I suppose by "means" you're referring to paying for it, and that's something that's currently being litigated or negotiated with the parties involved.

I was thinking more of technical capability, but I suppose that could be a company with a huge wad of cash that hires a whole bunch of designers and contractors rather than a big existing design-build firm.

Last time I heard something about it on the news, a company, or the companies, involved in its ownership or operation (and maybe the insurance companies involved) are trying to get their liability capped at something like $40 million; the price tag is probably going to be over the $ billion mark.

Whether their liability is capped at $40 million or at the value of the company's share capital, there is a limit. Any costs beyond that limit would be externalities and wouldn't be a factor in the company's decision-making.

Those companies may have to foot the bill, since it was their ship that broke the bridge.

The whole cost? Remains to be seen. And they could never be forced to pay more than the value of the company.

Biden has already pledged federal funding to help pay for its reconstruction, because the federal pockets are quite deep, and it's to the benefit of the federal government to have it fixed.

... and because it's not viable for the free market to do it.

I don't know if there was a toll for that bridge, but I've driven through Baltimore and it does have tolls.

The profit comes from the goods and services that the taxpayers can get for less, just like any other bridge.

So you think the replacement of the Key Bridge would be a viable free market project with no revenue source besides tolls?

 

[Eddi]

How did that work out for the Soviet Union? How's that working out for places like Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, etc?

Those places are/were dictatotships with low GDPs

It is not reasonable to compare them to developed democratic nations where some things are public

In the last year I have been to A and E in an ambulance and had an MRI scan and am on lots of meds

I didn't have to pay anything extra for any of these things

The UK (which you characterise as socialist) is way more developed than the USA

Only the super rich and certain ideologues want to drag us down to the level the USA is at

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How did that work out for the Soviet Union? How's that working out for places like Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, etc?

In the case of Cuba, they're certainly doing better than a lot of places with capitalist economies.

(Translation: 200 million children in the world today sleep in the streets. None of them are Cuban)

 

[Altfish]

I have been working in the IT department of the healthcare industry for a long time; during that time I have had some rather interesting conversations with other healthcare staff, including doctors, nurses, pharmacists, etc.

One time I had a conversation with a nurse who said he went to observe the healthcare system in the UK. I recall him telling me about a dirty trick they play to create false statistics, which is that they make patients wait to be counted somehow, in order to cook the numbers & make it appear that their socialized healthcare system was performing ok, things are running smoothly, etc. I don't remember the exact details, but essentially it involved making patients wait before being admitted into the waiting room (or wherever the threshold was for counting patients, starting the "wait time" clock, etc.), or something to that effect - if I'm remembering accurately or correctly. That's fraud & false advertising; a private company could get charged with a crime or sued for that type of stuff.

Is that the result of a free market or right wing Tory Party, or is that the true face of socialism?

Healthcare in UK was fine in 2010 when the Tories took over, it has got worse and worse since, more stuff sold off, costing more and performing worse.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Your overall essay was a straw man.

Private companies have brought the cost of products down, yet they still make a profit & if private companies can do this, then so can politicians.

No private company has ever managed to constantly reduce costs except through the use of technology. The technology does not yet exist to make absolutely every cost of human life cheaper. Maybe someday, but it ain't yet.

I didn't specify an amount or percentage to reduce taxes, or some sort of deadline to reach a 0% tax rate; in a way you're putting words in my mouth.

No, but to say "reduce" means a percentage that is non-zero and non-negative. And again, you specified that (bringing taxes down) as the one simple job of all politicians. That means next year's politicians, and the year after that, and so on. And so eventually near-zero is inevitable. Your words, coupled with simple arithmetic, makes that a fact.

It just so happens, however, that there actually are ways to bring down the tax rate to 0%. For example, tariffs is one. Another could be to only have businesses or investors pay taxes.

Tariffs and duties are designed to make domestic products cheaper than imports. When the difference is great enough, nobody will buy the imports, and thus the tariffs and duties dry up. Again inevitable.

But I'm very interested in why you would suggest only business (which are either owned by proprietors, or by shareholders) and investors (who are the shareholders, with the intention -- like you, of earning money) should pay taxes. Is that sort of "as long as it's not me?"

Look into a concept called a post-scarcity society. The idea there is that automation, robotics, and other advancements in technology would eliminate the need for people to work in order to access resources, and in general, there would no longer be a need for money, trade, or taxes.

Are we there yet? I know we can replace cashiers in stores with automatic check-outs -- but of course that just makes some unemployed people, and that's a problem for them because they still need money. You can continue to lay people off with technology, but that does not cure society's ills until you get to the point where nobody actually needs money: when you can have a house or apartment just because you want one, not because you can afford; when you can eat without having to purchase food, or the cookware and power to prepare it; when teachers don't need to be paid to teach; when all goods and services -- however personal -- are delivered free on demand.

There are things that work best when undertaken for the public as a whole, and for those things, government is still the best option.. And who decides what those things are? In a democracy, that would be the people who vote. In many places in the world, electorates have authorized their governments to exact taxes to pay for universal healthcare, for example. In Canada, that doesn't mean that the government is providing healthcare -- not at all. Doctors and patients and hospitals make the decisions between themselves on the healthcare needed. All the government does it foot the bill.

The same is true of much public infrastructure. To fund the projects our communities need most, government typically borrows at a preferred interest rate that is much lower than is available to any private investor. Governments are often able to borrow at rates of 2.5-3.0%, But private investors expect returns of 7% to 9% (and often more!) on their investments in public projects. ROI is why people invest, after all. No homeowner in their right mind would commit to a mortgage at a rate of 7% or more when they can borrow at 2.5%.

To meet the demands of these rich investors, privately-funded infrastructure projects will have to generate income. This could mean:

• More toll bridges and highways;
• New costs and increased user fees due to privatization of airports, public transit, and utility services.

Struggling families and workers across the nation already pay their fair share and shouldn’t be asked to fill billionaires’ pockets just to use the roads and bridges in their communities. When private companies own our public infrastructure, we also have less control over how and where projects get built. This could mean:

• Less environmental accountability;
• Less funding for smaller or non-revenue generating projects, like those in rural, remote, and Indigenous communities.

I think most Americans expect public infrastructure to support their communities – not an investor’s bottom line.

Now, you as a voter, can try your damndest to convince everybody else to get rid of healthcare and necessary infrastructure. You could say, "think of the tax money we'd all save! Then all we'd have to do is cross our fingers and pray that each one of us never develops a health problem that costs millions and bankrupts us -- or forces us to give up and die because we can't afford to be cured. Or we can hope we just never have to go anywhere that is remote and not serviced." And if they agree with you, you win. But if they don't, then I guess you have to suck it up.

What I find infinitely more egregious than your whine about taxes is that when tax reductions are dished up, especially by Republican governments, the boon usually goes to the people who already have 6 yachts and 4 houses and have no need of it. The rest of everybody -- the little guy and the middle class -- usually get squat, or a trifling pittance.

 

[sun rise]

I have been working in the IT department of the healthcare industry for a long time; during that time I have had some rather interesting conversations with other healthcare staff, including doctors, nurses, pharmacists, etc.

One time I had a conversation with a nurse who said he went to observe the healthcare system in the UK. I recall him telling me about a dirty trick they play to create false statistics, which is that they make patients wait to be counted somehow, in order to cook the numbers & make it appear that their socialized healthcare system was performing ok, things are running smoothly, etc. I don't remember the exact details, but essentially it involved making patients wait before being admitted into the waiting room (or wherever the threshold was for counting patients, starting the "wait time" clock, etc.), or something to that effect - if I'm remembering accurately or correctly. That's fraud & false advertising; a private company could get charged with a crime or sued for that type of stuff.

Is that the result of a free market or right wing Tory Party, or is that the true face of socialism?

Why pick on the UK given that the USA is an outlier compared to the developed world when it comes to cost and statistical poor outcomes. Try comparing Japan, Germany, Switzerland, Norway and other countries.

Health and health system ranking of countries worldwide in 2023 | Statista - USA ranks 69 just ahead of Algeria. How's that for capitalist health care outcomes