![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Okay, with elections coming up (especially local bond/tax issue elections), I'm seeing the usual rush of pseudo-Libertarian posts to blogs or webcomics or wherever complaining about taxation. "Vote Libertarian, it's like voting for a tax cut!"
I do not intend to debate actual Libertarian positions here, save to note that one of their core precepts is that "That which governs least governs best." Less government action requires less taxation, no real argument there. (EDIT: By this I don't mean that I agree with the precept...just not going to argue about it here. Much. Heh.)
What I am going to do here is argue that I like the current level of taxation. And I've been in the 28% bracket for a few years now. Not that I actually spend 28% of my income on taxes, of course...those "Tax Freedom Day" people are lying through their teeth in an attempt to make it look like people are giving nearly half their money to the government (through a combination of abusing the definitions of "average" and shuffling weekends under the rug). I have my latest paycheck here, and when you add up Social Security, Medicare, Federal and State Income taxes, I've paid 23% of my gross income. Only about half of that is Federal Income Tax, and if things go as they usually do, my tax refund will kick back 3-4 percent of my gross income. So, despite being in the 28% bracket and doing nothing to try to reduce my tax burden (I take the standard deductible and that's it), the government only gets about a fifth of my money.
By way of comparison, I spend about that percentage of my gross earnings on rent, for an 800 square foot apartment that's pretty nice and in a decent neighborhood. So if I just think of taxes as paying rent on the country and state, it's not so bad. :) But I have other arguments.
Let's look at the four slices I pay taxes for: Social Security, Medicare, State and Federal Income Tax.
Social Security and Medicare together take a pretty big bite of my paycheck, and the odds that either will be solvent by the time I actually need them are looking worse all the time. On the other hand, they are currently supporting both of my surviving grandparents...for one, that means there will be an inheritance someday (instead of all her savings being drained), for the other that means my parents don't have to directly pay to support her. So I figure I'm getting my money's worth out of that tax bite for the moment.
State Income Tax goes mainly to two things: roads and schools. I like having roads, and even laying aside the fact that I work for a state university, I also like having public schools in existence. Sure, the money might be spent more effectively than it is now, and I have issues with how public schools work, but taking away funding isn't going to solve those problems. It's kinda like proposing to heal someone by slapping on a leech. Throwing money at the problem may not help, but taking money away certainly won't. State-level taxes shouldn't be dropped significantly, in my opinion...to do so just steals from the future, when the roads crumble and the kids are more ignorant ten years down the road.
Federal Income Tax is admittedly a LOT more complicated to trace. The Federal Government does a lot more things than most State Governments, which many point to as a problem. However, when asked what to cut out, everyone points to something that doesn't directly affect them...which means no one can agree on what to cut, because every spending program, EVERY SINGLE ONE, is there because someone felt it was important to them. Even if the importance was on the level of simple porkbarrel bribery, it wouldn't have gotten in there if someone who has a say didn't make an effort. But let's look at some of the more high-profile chunks of the Federal budget.
The military. Maybe not the biggest non-Social Security chunk, but it's definitely in the top three. It sucks up a LOT of money, and I certainly don't think it's being used responsibly at the moment. But I do think we should have a military beyond the bare minimum needed to defend ourselves in a head-in-the-sand isolationist stance. We should have the capacity to intervene in situations beyond our shores before they flare out of control and directly affect us (militarily or economically). Or even to intervene in situations that are clearly violations of even the loosest standards of human morality. Our current level of committment is too much, but I do think we need the option to deal with some stuff. Cutting the military budget can save some money and lower taxes a bit, but too big of a cut would be irresponsible.
The Federal Bureaucracy. Leaving aside actual programs, just paying for all the people that keep this system running is expensive. Some of it is probably unnecessary, the result of redundancy or relics. But when you've got over a TRILLION dollars running through the government every year, the potential for complexity is high. Of course, this whole issue is entangled with a lot of others...cut down other programs and you can also cut down the bureaucracy. But simply saying "reduce the bureaucracy" without reducing the stuff they're responsible for won't save you much. It makes a nice soundbite, but if it could really be reduced without screwing up the system, it likely would have been by now. Of course, I like to think that the size of the bureaucracy gives government a certain amount of inertia, thus protecting us from overly faddish and vote-pandering changes. The government may be hamstrung from doing good, but it's equally hamstrung from doing bad.
Regulatory Agencies. Related to and a big part of the bureaucracy, but a distinct thing to consider. Every time Congress passes a regulatory law, someone has to be hired to go around and make sure it's obeyed. Sometimes this has to be a highly trained specialist, other times it's just a matter of getting more warm bodies running around keeping an eye on things. If regulations were slashed, the government could save a lot of money on regulators. The market will regulate itself, right? Okay, I can hear some of you laughing all the way from the coast. The problem with the invisible hand is that it mainly concerns itself with short term matters, and works less efficiently when it comes to long term consequences, often kicking in only when it's so far along that drastic responses are necessary. Federal regulations are often concerned with putting a brake on "short term gain/long term problem" behavior...if not preventing it, at least making it move more slowly so that people can see the consequences coming with enough lead time to implement less drastic solutions. I'd rather not have Enron's behavior become commonplace, for example (okay, the type of behavior is probably pretty common, but the degree is kept to a low roar).
So, sure, we might be able to find stuff to cut here and there without making things worse. But I'd rather plow those savings back into fixing things that have already gotten bad than have a few hundred extra dollars in my pocket each year. If someone promised to cut my tax bill in half, and looked like they might actually succeed, I'd be very worried for the future.
Anyway, while I may not pay my taxes cheerfully, I'm also not going to complain about it, or vote for a candidate just because they promise lower taxes (in fact, I'd be more likely to vote for someone who's honest and promises that taxes will stay the same or maybe go up a tiny bit). As long as it's not a major hassle (and my taxes took me about an hour between state and federal last year), I'm fine with it. Not all the money directly benefits me, but so what?
Contrary to the old saw, the government is not my employee. It's my landlord...and as long as my stuff gets fixed when it breaks, I don't care if the landlord is spending more money maintaining more troublesome apartments. We pool our money, they make sure everything gets done that needs to be. Simple as that.
I do not intend to debate actual Libertarian positions here, save to note that one of their core precepts is that "That which governs least governs best." Less government action requires less taxation, no real argument there. (EDIT: By this I don't mean that I agree with the precept...just not going to argue about it here. Much. Heh.)
What I am going to do here is argue that I like the current level of taxation. And I've been in the 28% bracket for a few years now. Not that I actually spend 28% of my income on taxes, of course...those "Tax Freedom Day" people are lying through their teeth in an attempt to make it look like people are giving nearly half their money to the government (through a combination of abusing the definitions of "average" and shuffling weekends under the rug). I have my latest paycheck here, and when you add up Social Security, Medicare, Federal and State Income taxes, I've paid 23% of my gross income. Only about half of that is Federal Income Tax, and if things go as they usually do, my tax refund will kick back 3-4 percent of my gross income. So, despite being in the 28% bracket and doing nothing to try to reduce my tax burden (I take the standard deductible and that's it), the government only gets about a fifth of my money.
By way of comparison, I spend about that percentage of my gross earnings on rent, for an 800 square foot apartment that's pretty nice and in a decent neighborhood. So if I just think of taxes as paying rent on the country and state, it's not so bad. :) But I have other arguments.
Let's look at the four slices I pay taxes for: Social Security, Medicare, State and Federal Income Tax.
Social Security and Medicare together take a pretty big bite of my paycheck, and the odds that either will be solvent by the time I actually need them are looking worse all the time. On the other hand, they are currently supporting both of my surviving grandparents...for one, that means there will be an inheritance someday (instead of all her savings being drained), for the other that means my parents don't have to directly pay to support her. So I figure I'm getting my money's worth out of that tax bite for the moment.
State Income Tax goes mainly to two things: roads and schools. I like having roads, and even laying aside the fact that I work for a state university, I also like having public schools in existence. Sure, the money might be spent more effectively than it is now, and I have issues with how public schools work, but taking away funding isn't going to solve those problems. It's kinda like proposing to heal someone by slapping on a leech. Throwing money at the problem may not help, but taking money away certainly won't. State-level taxes shouldn't be dropped significantly, in my opinion...to do so just steals from the future, when the roads crumble and the kids are more ignorant ten years down the road.
Federal Income Tax is admittedly a LOT more complicated to trace. The Federal Government does a lot more things than most State Governments, which many point to as a problem. However, when asked what to cut out, everyone points to something that doesn't directly affect them...which means no one can agree on what to cut, because every spending program, EVERY SINGLE ONE, is there because someone felt it was important to them. Even if the importance was on the level of simple porkbarrel bribery, it wouldn't have gotten in there if someone who has a say didn't make an effort. But let's look at some of the more high-profile chunks of the Federal budget.
The military. Maybe not the biggest non-Social Security chunk, but it's definitely in the top three. It sucks up a LOT of money, and I certainly don't think it's being used responsibly at the moment. But I do think we should have a military beyond the bare minimum needed to defend ourselves in a head-in-the-sand isolationist stance. We should have the capacity to intervene in situations beyond our shores before they flare out of control and directly affect us (militarily or economically). Or even to intervene in situations that are clearly violations of even the loosest standards of human morality. Our current level of committment is too much, but I do think we need the option to deal with some stuff. Cutting the military budget can save some money and lower taxes a bit, but too big of a cut would be irresponsible.
The Federal Bureaucracy. Leaving aside actual programs, just paying for all the people that keep this system running is expensive. Some of it is probably unnecessary, the result of redundancy or relics. But when you've got over a TRILLION dollars running through the government every year, the potential for complexity is high. Of course, this whole issue is entangled with a lot of others...cut down other programs and you can also cut down the bureaucracy. But simply saying "reduce the bureaucracy" without reducing the stuff they're responsible for won't save you much. It makes a nice soundbite, but if it could really be reduced without screwing up the system, it likely would have been by now. Of course, I like to think that the size of the bureaucracy gives government a certain amount of inertia, thus protecting us from overly faddish and vote-pandering changes. The government may be hamstrung from doing good, but it's equally hamstrung from doing bad.
Regulatory Agencies. Related to and a big part of the bureaucracy, but a distinct thing to consider. Every time Congress passes a regulatory law, someone has to be hired to go around and make sure it's obeyed. Sometimes this has to be a highly trained specialist, other times it's just a matter of getting more warm bodies running around keeping an eye on things. If regulations were slashed, the government could save a lot of money on regulators. The market will regulate itself, right? Okay, I can hear some of you laughing all the way from the coast. The problem with the invisible hand is that it mainly concerns itself with short term matters, and works less efficiently when it comes to long term consequences, often kicking in only when it's so far along that drastic responses are necessary. Federal regulations are often concerned with putting a brake on "short term gain/long term problem" behavior...if not preventing it, at least making it move more slowly so that people can see the consequences coming with enough lead time to implement less drastic solutions. I'd rather not have Enron's behavior become commonplace, for example (okay, the type of behavior is probably pretty common, but the degree is kept to a low roar).
So, sure, we might be able to find stuff to cut here and there without making things worse. But I'd rather plow those savings back into fixing things that have already gotten bad than have a few hundred extra dollars in my pocket each year. If someone promised to cut my tax bill in half, and looked like they might actually succeed, I'd be very worried for the future.
Anyway, while I may not pay my taxes cheerfully, I'm also not going to complain about it, or vote for a candidate just because they promise lower taxes (in fact, I'd be more likely to vote for someone who's honest and promises that taxes will stay the same or maybe go up a tiny bit). As long as it's not a major hassle (and my taxes took me about an hour between state and federal last year), I'm fine with it. Not all the money directly benefits me, but so what?
Contrary to the old saw, the government is not my employee. It's my landlord...and as long as my stuff gets fixed when it breaks, I don't care if the landlord is spending more money maintaining more troublesome apartments. We pool our money, they make sure everything gets done that needs to be. Simple as that.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
(certain Canadians are like that too, of course---the usual suspects, we can predict them with ease)
From:
no subject
Imagine, while we were going through the largest economic boom time in recent history, schools were scrabbling to find the money to operate and libraries were closing.
Fortunately people now hate Sizemore.