Governments are very good at squandering wealth
Political ·Tuesday March 31, 2009 @ 23:01 EDT (link)
More about Obama's War on Prosperity. We (CLAMS) were discussing taxation; the main point is a post from Victor Rosu, below, but first some context, starting with this post from KM:
Face it, if you wish to contribute to a cause, then you are welcome to do it! You are even welcome to start up your own 501(c)(3) organization and solicit contributions to do that "so much that could be done." Hell, you could create a charity that counsels cats on abortions!
Instead, you prefer the theft of my earned income, to support socialist programs that would never be considered viable if they had to stand on their own merits and run on the contributions of those who support it!
Reply from (admitted socialist) PM:
The mere fact that you believe that contributing to society is theft means that we have no common ground in this discussion. Your POV seems to consider your needs above those of the country and society. I'm not sure there is much we could do with a nation of people who feel as you do.
The main post, by Victor Rosu, posted with his permission:
Paying taxes ≠ contributing to society. That may be the primary intention, but poorly managed, poorly applied or abused can result in only a small fraction of tax money collected actually "contributing to society."
Let Y be the $ amount to be taxed, X the % rate of taxation and Z the outcome (measured as overall "contribution to society"):
Z = Y × X%
Y increases to Y1, X increases to X1:
Z1 = Y1 × X1%
Then X1 increases to X2, Y2 ≥ Y1 ≥ Y.
Z2 = Y2 × X2%
Z2 > Z1 > Z; Obama, PM and beneficiaries of Z2 (which include Obama) are happy.
The producer of Y, Y1 and Y2 is a compassionate conservative and says: "Well, I have $500 less in my pocket, but at least PM (and Obama) are happy". But, he's not upgrading his laptop just yet, because well, he's short $500. So he'll do it 3-4 months later (and that's not the only outcome, the final outcome of this particular situation is that he's upgrading his laptop every 40 months instead of 36 for as long as Y and Z stay roughly the same).
Hmm, that's $500 not going to, say, Best Buy, HP and Microsoft (and the local government for sales taxes) and some other 3rd parties. But they did go to Fedzilla.
So BB, HP and MS have a little less income to play with. And what's one of the outcomes and the purpose of their game? Less profit, less growth, less money to pay employees or hire more employees. Who are the employees? Employees are tax contributors (Y) of all sorts:
- the ones hit by X (rate) increase, the filthy rich that deserve it and can live with it,
- but also the other ones the innocent Joe and Jane (as long as they're not plumbers)
- and though you think some are beneficiaries of Z, in practice there are none or a negligible quantity.
So by the time you get to (brackets) Y3 and Y4, they're < Y so Z2 and Z3 < Z1. Who's happy now? Only Obama because he's the only beneficiary left standing (he's increased his and the government's power).
You may argue that the money is not lost, it's still gone somewhere—to Fedzilla and for a good cause, to help the vulnerable and in the process they get spent so some other part of the economy is "stimulated."
Which means that you believe that:
- The government is spending the money efficiently.
- Giving money to the unemployed is preferable to preventing the unemployed from getting there in the first place or,
- Creating make-work projects to delude the unemployed that they perform a useful function and they actually earn fair income, is a solution.
- Any other artificial, social-engineering swindle resembling the above would work.
In reality there is such a thing as "wealth creation" and there also is "wealth squandering." It's being proven beyond any sane and reasonable doubt that:
- businesses and industrious individuals are very good at creating wealth (for everyone —just look at your country, yes, yes, even today, amidst "the worst economic crisis since the great depression") and,
- governments are very good at squandering wealth (everyone's—just look at most other countries).
Where businesses fail and start squandering wealth are those instances where they grow so big that they resemble a government—in which case, just let them die because on their own they don't and can't last long. Economically speaking, everything that functions in a corrupt or artificially propped environment is wilting. The choice is to either let the sick (companies) wilt or corrupt the whole environment and everything wilts.
On another note [speaking to various liberals]: as an atheist, a proponent of the theory (nay, scientific evidence!) of non-design, 0 creationism and in perfect harmony with the theory of evolution, how do you reconcile that view, with the need to have a priority in deciding that someone is vulnerable and needs help?
There is no rational link between a perfectly scientifically objective view of a world without God (or a higher calling that is placed outside of the survival of the species framework) that can philosophically sustain any charitable cause. Just curious….
Even if government was efficient, it doesn't give them the moral right to steal money from productive people and redistribute it for any cause, no matter how well-intentioned.
