At the federal level the overwhelming majority of spending is non-discresionary entitlement transfer spending - Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, farm subsidies, etc. These are transfers from one pocket, the taxpayer's pocket (and via debt their children ...) to the the recipient's pockets. The government gets nothing from this in the form of infrastructure or core governmental responsibilities met, but the electorate gets what a working majority deems a social good. Most infrastructure and such was originally intended to be state and local government, but the Federal tax take supresses the ability to state's to tax, and thus such expenditures are given short shrift.

Yes, the US spends a larger amount on defense. This is in large part because the rest of the democratic industrialized west hides under a US military umbrella. When there is a crisis in the world needful of a military response, the world calls on the US for the most part, because the rest of the world is not up to the job.

Australia and the UK stand out as partial exceptions to this generalization, and are deserving of our highest respect.

Posted at May 28, 2008 12:58 PM in response to Polarisation and the 2008 election

"What's needed is to work out what a society has to have and then determine the tax rates needed to pay for those things"

Wow. Almost any working individual with a budget, formal or informal, could tell you that you have it backwards. First you figure out what you have to spend, what you can afford, then you decide what to spend it on.

There is very little from government that society has to have, as opposed to would like to have. Universal healthcare would be nice, but I do not see how this is something that society has to have from government such that whatever the cost government must extract in taxation the means to provide it.

I have asked this question before, but not received an answer: How much is enough? Just what share of the nation's wealth ought the government take from the taxpayers in preference to allowing the taxpayers to individually decide to save or spend?

Posted at May 27, 2008 5:15 PM in response to Polarisation and the 2008 election

"Libertarianism is ultimately a form of romanticism in so far as it imagines that society ungoverned, people in a state of nature, would be happy, just, fair, humane and all good things."

I do not know any Libertarians who think this way. This is a straw man argument. To give a few examples, Libertarians support the role of governnment in maintaining the common defense against foreign aggression, in promoting the rule of law through the impartial administration of justice, in preventing fraud. In general, Libertarians do not want to tell people what they must do, only what they must not do. Modern Liberals appear obsessed with forcing individuals to do what government deems best for them.

Posted at May 22, 2008 4:20 PM in response to The Liberal-Libertarian Divide

It is an unsafe assumption that Kobe Bryant will play at all if taxed at that rate. Recall also how many musicians and artists fled Great Britain in the 60's and 70's to escape confiscatory tax rates.

I have yet to hear a convincing argument why anyone should pay a higher tax RATE (as opposed to total tax) simply because the market values their labor at a higher rate.

A danger with libertarianism is that it can be heartless. A danger with modern liberals is that they are willing to tax the political minority to transfer wealth to a political majority.

Posted at May 22, 2008 3:05 PM in response to The Liberal-Libertarian Divide

Hate to break it to you, but in most of country the FD is the local Volunteer FD, and they have a much better reputation than the big city "professional" fire departments with their union rules, etc.

Can you state any reason why road maintenance, or road construction, should not be profitable? I want my tax dollars spent efficiently, and in my experience for profit operations are more efficient than either not for profit or government, and that is first hand experience having worked for all three types.

Posted at May 22, 2008 1:45 PM in response to Journey Into the Center of a Right-Leaning, Independent Brain

Costs are as high as they are in part because health insurance paid for by third parties distorts the economics. The folks who consume the end product - health care service - don't for the most part pay for the end product. Divorced from its cost they naturally want the most they can get, even if the utility is marginal, not the most they can afford. This is a natural and understandable impulse.

The only way to reduce the ultimate costs without artificial rationing is to reduce the demand from the consumer, increase the supply from the providers or increase the supply by increasing the number of providers, or reduce the net cost of the supply through productivity increases and overhead (read liability insurance costs and administrative costs) reduction.

Posted at November 30, 2007 9:36 AM in response to Dodd Strengthens the Safety Net

I disagree. The enumeration does not authorise simple transfers of wealth.

The relevant section is Article 1, Section 8 in its entirety:

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Posted at November 26, 2007 10:29 AM in response to More Young People Believe in UFOs Than Read a Daily Newspaper

One does not relate to the other. The benefits are paid from current revenue - that is the pay-(as-you)-go aspect of it. The distribution of benefits is a separate question, the answer to which is simply political choice.

Posted at November 26, 2007 10:17 AM in response to More Young People Believe in UFOs Than Read a Daily Newspaper

There is a difference in taxes used to fund government services and taxes used as one half of a simple income transfer. Social Security, except for its administrative overhead, is not a government service, and certainly is not one of Congress' enumerated powers. It is simply an income transfer from the young to the old.

To answer your question - we take care of them, but government is not the way to provide that care any more than government is the way to provide moral education.

Please address my question of the principles involved.

Posted at November 26, 2007 8:53 AM in response to More Young People Believe in UFOs Than Read a Daily Newspaper

Actually, your money does not for the most part exist in the bank - that is how banks work. They take your deposit and INVEST it, usually in the form of interest bearing loans. The difference between the interest they give and the interest they take is what covers the operating costs and profits of the bank.

All you have is a promise by the bank to pay. The solvency of the bank is to a degree ($100,000 iirc) backed up by the FDIC and by the Federal Reserve requirements that they have some proportion of their deposits held as cash or highly liquid intruments.

The Federal Government does not invest the SS surplus, they spend it on current outlays and then stick an IOU in the ledger.

Don't you feel better now?

Posted at November 21, 2007 9:47 AM in response to More Young People Believe in UFOs Than Read a Daily Newspaper