Your assumption is that the state will apply that money optimally (or at least more optimally than the super rich - also, notice you didn’t define what super rich are).
Looking at historical and present data, I can be absolutely sure that the state will mismanage that money in almost every country.
I’m Portuguese, my government is collecting more ~ 25% taxes than it collected 6 years ago when the current ruling party got into power. Almost everyone (left and right) agrees that public services and administration are much worst. So, it begs the question: why giving the government even more money, will solve anything?
To be honest I think this is strawman argument. I think it is absolutely true that the government will mismanage some of that money. The question is whether that money used with not 100% efficiency is better than a billionaire who may spend that money on anything. I certainly agree there are rich people who donate their money effectively but even then they decide what to spend the money on. So in my opinion some government mismanagement is not the reason to have some redistribution, but rather a reason to ensure that governments are properly accountable etc. And even if that is a government spending it can be still tendered to private companies depending on what's being done.
I don't appreciate the extravagant waste and the entitlement of the state to impose it's will on the people. With our taxes, we also support bailouts, wars, and other profiteering of those in control. Also, these institutions are basically monopolies, where the people in charge are not really accountable to run them efficiently or effectively.
Does giving the government more money make the government more effective?
No, but the default opinion seems to be that rich will spend it well and the government will waste it. This is plainly absurd. At least the people have a degree of democratic control over the government.
I am amazed at how easily you skip over the fact that this means government gets to spend that money. As if that were some ideal outcome which would solve all problems.
Which government exactly is it that you think is excellent at solving societal problems and spending taxes efficiently?
There's an assumption there that more money to government = make things better but there are plenty of examples where the government makes things worse.
Some people believe that giving less = actually make things better because it will limit the bad things a government can do.
The problem is, that in almost all of the west, without government spending, 30% to 50% of society would be in deep poverty. To me it looks like the elite and the government collude to pacate the vast majority of have-nothings. A large percentage of a nation's income lands in the bags of a few thousands. In the mean time the government borrows money from the future in order to pay off the millions who get nothing.
Please help me understand this. We have a collective government that has more money than any other country EVER. Yet they can't balance a budget and are massively in debt. If you have people who are very bad at spending money giving them more money isn't going to solve any of their problems.
We have corrupt officials who are well entrenched in their positions who profit off of it by selling out their constituents to their donors.
More government isn't the answer. Less government better run and regulated is the key.
oh, but I agree. I'm not advocating government spending. I'm only saying that in principle, ANY government is corrupt and the most wealth is accumulated by being close to the power (either by lobbying, favoritism, coercion or plain corruption). Government (both as a concept and as a specific entity in each country) is the source of most of the inequalities, not the cure.
Government misapplication of funds is the reason so much is wrong in this world. The idea some government politician or worse a group of them could better employ the money of a Gates or Bezos is ludicrous. They have all already proven they cannot. Gates does better with his money because he isn't doing one thing politicians love to do, punish by giving and taking money from groups.
Governments routinely punish the poor for nothing more than being poor. In the US this is done through fees, penalties, licensing, direct taxation, and embedded taxes. Government routinely targets the poor for enforcement efforts because the officials know they cannot afford to fight back, hence why so much forfeiture in the US is of that class.
You can take all the wealth of every US Billionaire and not fix anything because the political class will not fix what is already wrong with their spending. More money just means more likelihood of more money spent wrong.
The only source of wealth that can pay for all the promises being made this cycle is from the middle and upper classes combined.
TWO TRILLION Dollars comprise Social Security, Medicare, and Medicade, tell me who giving them more will solve anything when they cannot care for Americans with two trillion dollars. Worse this is on top of state aid programs and programs coming out of another nearly 1.5 trillion dollars in various aid programs.
This assumes government spending is responsible and just. Taking someone's money to line the pockets of bureaucrats and paying inflated prices to government contractors isn't going to make me happy. There is too much corruption. If I felt tax money was being spent well, I might feel differently. Until the government can show they can be trusted with money, I don't see why they should be trusted with any more of it.
I'm not going to apply any morality to an individual spending money they earned. I am going to apply it to a government taking money through taxes. The government has a responsibility to do right by the citizens paying the taxes.
From what I've seen, most of the "tax the rich" people are assuming the government is going to spend the money to help the poor, or support whatever other causes they want... or more transparently, the money taken from the rich will go to them in some way. The reality is that probably won't happen. Even when the government does give out cash, like we saw during the pandemic in the US, look at what happened. A significant percentage of people ran out and bought stuff, costing more than what they were given. A concerning number took on significant debt (like a new car), as if those checks would keep coming. So the money went right back to people who own the companies, raising their wealth by billions, and the people ended up in worse debt than before the wealth was distributed. We see a similar pattern with lotto winners. It doesn't work. A government functioning like Robin Hood isn't the solution, we need education on saving vs spending, living within one's means, and being content with what one has. But these things are all bad for the economy, so there is little incentive for those in power to do it, so it falls on individuals.
depends what spending is on, government spending can be incredibly productive. Tax increases on the rich would work better if they actually paid them. This is a difficult problem, I certainly don't have the answer, and I'm not convinced there is a simple answer.
There’s certainly a popular belief that government is mismanaged, but I’m not entirely sure it is, or at least is to the extent and in the areas that anti-tax advocates believe.
Of course make government more effective and efficient. Very few would argue against that.
But at some point, there’s just nothing to trim. However if one’s underlying assumption is all public spending is bad, then of course there’s more to cut, it’s just that the argument to justify the cut is disingenuous.
“ The government is taking a big chunk of your money anyways”
I think the idea is that if the government took less money, there would be more money in the hands of people to help take care of local misery.
The fact that a government agency fails to provide the services you're taxed to pay for does not mean they should get more money. I pay far higher taxes where I live now than when I lived in an openly socialist country that had better roads, faster police response times, better (and universal) healthcare. Every time I dig into specific government projects the amount of waste and corruption is disgusting. Wanting to throw more money at it is stupid, and the burden of proof is not on the people who want to be taxed less that it's actually doing anything.
Looking at historical and present data, I can be absolutely sure that the state will mismanage that money in almost every country.
I’m Portuguese, my government is collecting more ~ 25% taxes than it collected 6 years ago when the current ruling party got into power. Almost everyone (left and right) agrees that public services and administration are much worst. So, it begs the question: why giving the government even more money, will solve anything?
reply