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.
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.
It's important to distinguish between rights- and incentive-based objections to redistribution and efficiency-based objections to government spending. The government as an organization of humans is very inefficient and wasteful at accomplishing actual tasks (e.g., building bridges), but it's actually very efficient at redistributing wealth through pure transfers (e.g., the administrative overhead of social security is negligible compared to the amount redistributed). Thus the best objections are grounded in bad incentive effects or property rights, not the inefficiency of government.
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?
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.
The other side of the coin is that regardless of who is holding the money the government not being able to spend it could be considered a better allocation just because they are so damn wasteful. Just because the government SHOULD be correct doesn't mean it actually is, and just because a law says money shall be allocated for X doesn't mean any real value is coming out of X, and the work the money is doing by being kept away from the government should also be considered as a loss when paying for X (so more than just the cost of X is spent).
The veiled argument is that government is very inefficient, more than investments and donations. It is often thought that the 1% would redistribute to the rest, but the government takes quite a commission on that money.
I understand the point that preferences are not homogeneous across the population, and therefore there will always be a portion - often a significant portion - of government spending that any given citizen will disagree with. But I would argue that a significant amount of spending by the government is purely wasteful. Furthermore, one of the most useful roles of government, in my opinion, should be the efficient allocation of societal resources. Appeasement strategies for special interest groups are the furthest you can possibly get from that. Ethanol pledges that deepen dependence on inefficient and damaging businesses, zoning laws that create hard and increasingly intraversible class splits between property-owning Eloi and the forever wage-slaving Morlocks, and continued investment in an unreasonably sized military infrastructure are good for certain interests, but overall bad for society as a whole. If the government consistently makes decisions that are bad for society as a whole, I would posit that it is failing at a critical role.
If that is the case, then a certain portion of wealth going to actually good causes rather than the government would be a good thing, not an ethical violation. If the government cannot be relied on to spend the wealth of its people responsibly - if instead it fritters that resource away in power games and appeasement - then avoiding said taxes is not, fundamentally, immoral.
Off the top of my head for other bad and expensive government programs, there's the TSA and other Department of Homeland Security initiatives that fall under the umbrella of Security Theater; the support, both legal and economic, of the private prison industry; arms sales to ethically dubious partners; political vanity projects like the "Bridge to Nowhere"; ideologically driven propaganda (Reefer Madness, anyone?); and straight-up war crimes.
Representative government may be a good reflection of the people - I have misgivings about that claim, but I'll let them go - but the people should demand better than a reflection. I don't want my moral equal leading me; I want someone better. I want someone who isn't afraid to make an unpopular decision when it's the right thing to do.
While I do agree that having money put to use is preferable to not, the argument that any spending is therefore good seems somewhat absurdist. We wouldn’t apply that logic to government spending, for example - the government gold-plating Air Force One produces different effects than the government building water sanitation, even though they both result in economic activity. Accordingly, some spending produces more social good than others. The argument that critics of spending like this isn’t that it would be better for the money to sit in financial instruments, it’s that the money would be better off partially captured via taxes and more directly allocated to social good.
You can believe in good uses of tax money and still question whether the government has too much money or routinely mishandles it. Am I missing your point?
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.
Government is the least efficient allocator of resources? Says who? How many wealthy individuals are sitting on piles of money right now because they are unsure of the economic climate and therefore are not going to invest? Who better than the government to take it away from them and then invest it into public infrastructure and consequently stimulate the economy?
Yes, here's my reasoning: The Government has the ability to hire subject matter experts on a wide range of issues. They come up with plans to spend it and compete with each other about whose plan is the best and try to make compelling arguments to elected or appointed officials to get funding. The inefficiencies come from the inevitable systematic abuses of bureaucracy: nepotism, greed, personal interest, etcetera etcetera. But, they still end up doing something and it's at least been thought through.
Now, we come to my spending. I'll go through several hypothetical situations.
First, no income tax has been taken from me at all: I spend the money on stupid garbage (video games, comic books, movies, camera equipment, etcetera) or squirrel it away in an investment (as I noted, nice to have more, but I'm making investments anyway). The common good is not served, I have more stuff I probably don't need anyway, the world falls into chaos.
Second, I don't get to spend my taxed money on myself, but have to spend it towards the common good as I so choose: I put it towards a pet project that I think is worthwhile. In my case, it would be to sponsor free programming education for kids. I always thought the computer classes in school were lame and I'd like to see kids get a better introduction at a young age. Scale this up by 300 million people: Nice sounding projects to feed the homeless and provide specialized education to kids and plant gardens etcetera are supremely well funded, but there's no public police department, no public fire department, no public roads, public transportation, center for disease control, EPA, FDA, and all the other acronyms that ensure that you don't get fucking raped by some business that has enough money to buyout the private landowners to do whatever the fuck it wants to do.
Finally, I'm tasked with spending the money in such a way as to form the most ideal society as possible: Shit, I don't know what the fuck I'm doing, can't someone else take care of this? Thus, the government.
So, no, I would definitely be more incompetent than the government when it comes to using money for the common good. I would be terrible.
Also, don't go telling me that the private sector would be better at it, because brother, I've worked in a private organization that's as large as a small government, and they are filled to the fucking BRIM with bullshit.
Personally, I've always been of the mind that we should be working on automated systems to handle this sort of thing. Cold, unfeeling automata dedicated towards the most efficient dispersal of public funds. Unmotivated by emotional pleas and the suffering of the individual. Steely, ruthless, determined.
But no one else seems to like that idea and I don't know how to build it.
"It is highly unlikely that a government bureaucracy will distribute money such that it is spent more efficiently and productively than an individual taxpayer would if he still had the money to spend himself."
This talking point does not hold up to scrutiny.
There are plenty of examples where individuals fail to build infrastructure that, if built, would help everyone much more than the cumulative cost to build the infrastructure. The same goes for research and technology development.
Basically, the talking point assumes that individuals are rational economic actors in a rational market, and this is just not true. Additionally, even if the individuals were rational and fully informed, there will be highly suboptimal Nash equilibria.
So clearly you don't see the usefulness of government being able to spend money on programs that do make a difference, even going as far as to label it wasteful. I'd argue that letting people keep money that makes no significant difference in their life, other than sitting as a number on a bank account, is wasteful. If people can use money to better society, so can government, difference being government can spend money selflessly.
Government spending, in certain cases, can and is wasteful. To claim that all is, is clearly false.
I'd be wary of quoting Thomas Sowell, he's basically the guy to victim blame minorities into saying that being poor is their fault.
Giving your money to the government doesn't magically help the poor either. With rampant waste and managerial arrogance in the public sector, we should be calling for sweeping reform that spends what tax is there for more efficiently and disincentivises waste and unnecessary spending.
But it could pretty easily be argued that it's something that we should be spending money on. The existence of an argument against a course of action doesn't, on its face, preclude taking that course of action. Such a line of thinking is, well, bizarre.
"1 is big government spending (with little oversight)"
The obvious problem here isn't "big government" spending. It's spending without oversight. This problem occurs all the time everywhere, in sectors both public and private. To claim that private businesses are immune to this by nature of their ability to fail and thus inherently a better mechanism than government is an absolute farce.
Take ownership of your government. To view the elimination of government as a solution to bad governance is both a lazy approach to problem solving and toxic to proper governing.
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?
How do you categorise a set of 'wealthy oligarchs' as having 'worse' spending than a monolithic government, which we all know has terrible spending patterns and priorities.
Politicians spend money on vain projects to get themselves popular and re-elected- how is that not worse than a wealthy oligarch spending money on a gold plated fountain? At least the gold plated fountain would not be built on promises that the future (unborn) taxpayers will make up the tab.
The point here is that people tend to see the government as a relatively benign spender who sometimes gives money to others, while they automatically see a rich person spending money as terribly misdirected. When you impugn a government with perfect morals and individuals with terrible morals the thinking that results simply has to be wrong.
reply