I have been discussing taxes in various ways recently. The health care issue seems to have brought up taxes in general, their value, etc...

Adding up what it would cost to go it alone is a great way to see what taxes bring us in general.

http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071118/OSH06/7111806 05/1189

It's not a small bill, and I particularly like the point made about pooling resources with ones neighbors being a lot like taxes!

Also, a point was made a while back about the cost of delivering a letter. The idea that we should just pay that cost and keep government out of it seems to be a common thread.

The link always is somebody paying for something they don't use, like schools, if one has no kids.

What about the deal you are getting on those things you do use?

The same argument would also imply for insurance; some people could pay less than they do in taxes and have no police/fire protection, ect. But, we all chip in, and those services are there if we need it. The same is true with insurance policies.

It's not really the same, unless that insurance is run as a non-profit. Otherwise, you've got a scenario where the idea is to not pay out an collect as much as is possible.

Where taxes means we simply need to make sure everybody is being taken care of for the fewest overall dollars.

These are not the same.

Opting out breaks the thing too. Like the old days where one had to have their fire medallion showing or they would let the house burn. That's not cool.

What if somebody fell into hard times, but has paid for years, for example? Nobody wants to see them lose their home for sure.

This is why we just incorporate things like that into the taxes. It's also the maximum distribution, yielding the lowest overall cost.

Busineseses operating in a well maintained neighborhood benefit from these things. People have dollars to spend there, instead of on their own well being too.

Roads, police, etc... are necessary things to keep the peace and promote the general well being of the people.

What if somebody fell into hard times, but has paid for years, for example?

I was always told this is one of the classic examples of business deals, that even if it seems cold-hearted or even anti-humanitarian, if the service is paid for with a yearly/monthly/etc. fee, and that fee isn't paid for the current billing cycle, then the business doesn't provide service - period. Even if someone paid their $50/mo. for 20 years (or whatever amount and term), and lapses for one month because of whatever other expense.

I'm not saying I'm for or against this - just saying that this is what I've always heard of the subject.

It almost makes me wonder if one of these days, someone calls 911 because their house is burning down, and the operator has to tell them what the blinking red text on the computer screen says... 'I'm sorry, sir/ma'am, it says you're property tax payment wasn't received, you're on your own-(click).'

Missing_KSKD,
The similarity lies in the pooling of money to pay for a service a person couldn't pay for on his own.

An issue that concerns me is that I believe that today, the incentives are not strong enough for either public or private sector institutions to operate efficiently.

Private sector entities that have stock that is publicly traded are under the pressure of the stock holders to focus on short-term (quarterly) growth and profits. Furthermore, when private firms get no-bid contracts to perform services, the government might as well perform the service itself, as the incentive to innovate and provide said service more efficiently is eliminated.

When the public sector assumes a monopoly on providing a service, the incentives to run efficiently are indirect at best. Political candidates can run under "your taxes are high because of government waste" platforms, but that is about it.

Granted, there are some types of services, such as national defense, that can't be implemented easily by private entities, such as national defense and the construction/maintenance of surface streets. Others, I would consider debatable; here are some examples:

Radio and television broadcast stations
Buses and Streetcars
Highways
Insurance
Courier services

Pooled resources, my a**. They're called taxes for a reason. You have to pay them. You don't have to pay insurance bills. State Farm won't send an agent with a gun to your house and seize all your assets if you choose not to carry insurance.

Taxes are not pooled resources. Taxes are a redistribution of wealth. Why do you think they call it a progressive tax structure?

Taxes pay for everything around you. Without them, we'd still be cavemen.

"Without them, we'd still be cavemen."

True, but at least we'll be true Republicans.

Good analogy!

> You don't have to pay insurance bills.

In some states, you are required by law to have auto insurance. If you do not pay the insurance bills, and your policy is cancelled as a result, then you cannot legally drive that vehicle. Private sector entities do have legal remedies that they can use against you if you do not pay bills, such as sending a collection agency after you or taking you to court.

What defines taxes is that they are collected by governmental agencies, and they can be collected at any time. In other words, when a sales tax is levied, the tax is paid every time that a purchase is made, even if the goods purchased are not made by government agencies. Private sector entities can only collect money from you when you do business with them: for instance, businesses pay a higher rate for telephone service than residential customers. The residential service is cheaper because it is subsidized by the commercial customers. This is not a tax because it is not collected by the government, and it is only collected when paying a phone bill.

I think that some of this nit-picking over semantics is a bit foolish. The real debate is over what things absolutely have to be provided by governmental agencies and how to pay for those things. Generally, I am skeptical--or at least very cautious--regarding proposals that new functions must be added to the palette of things already provided by the public sector.

I think I agree with that --but for health care. IMHO, that's one that was missed.

"businesses pay a higher rate for telephone service than residential customers. The residential service is cheaper because it is subsidized by the commercial customers."

Also,
The PSTN is a shared resource. Presumably a buisness would use a greater percentage of that resource. (ie. more calls)

I don't mind paying taxes. What I do mind is how some of it is redistributed. This is an oversimplification, but wouldn't it be nice if you had a place on your tax form(s) where you could decide where you want your taxes to go? Like having a list of boxes to check.

From the self-employed side of things with each deposit we make we set aside 20 percent to pay our quarterly taxes. I have an account set up for just that. I like it because I can truly see what my net is per month.

And a bit of a rant: I hear and read how some people without kids don't want to have to pay taxes for schools. I have a real problem with that kind of attitude. It's selfish and unfair to the next generation. But that's for another thread.

I'm there too.

Really I started this thread to kind of highlight where taxes can have good value. It's something one has to pay, but it can be worth it, given solid distribution --that's key.

Those same people, ranting about having no kids, were paid up by the generation before. Ingrates!

Is there a study of some sort that breaks out the tax dollar in general? We are paying for a lot of stuff, and there are a lot of people complaining about waste and tax growth. (I'm one of them actually!)

Iraq should be broken out, as it's gonna inflate the tax burden considerably, and that has nothing really to do with the overall value other services may or may not have.

Chris, your post really gets to the meat of it. Value discussions need to be meaningful and put into context for any tax discussion to make any real sense.

So, what has real value, that's paid for with tax dollars?

Roads, schools (I know that one is under discussion, but overall it's one hell of a deal, performance aside), police, fire (with police being under discussion too), other things?