Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
The downside of having the government do things for you
Published on February 15, 2004 By Draginol In Politics

When I speak on-line on various sites, including JoeUser.com about the role of government, it becomes apparent quickly that many people think of the government as some sort of independent entity that is not connected to us.  Those people tend to favor having the government solve all kinds of problems, including problems better left to individuals to solve for themselves.

People like me, as I discussed in the philosophies of the left and the right are wary of having the government do anything that we could be doing for ourselves. The reason for that is because we recognize that the government is us. When the government does something, we're basically paying money to have someone else do it. In an episode of The Simpsons, Homer runs for sanitation commissioner. His campaign slogan is "Can't someone else do it?" He promises that the garbage men will take care of everything from emptying the litter box to changing diapers. Of course, after he's elected he puts his program in action and quickly runs out of money. It was hilarious and yet it had a point - no one is going to be as efficient at taking care of you as you are. Sure, we can pay someone else to change our litter box but it'll cost a lot more for the government to do it than it would for you to do it yourself.

In a country in which half the adult population effectively pays no federal taxes, it becomes pretty tempting to vote in programs that take care of all kinds of things we could do ourselves. Programs that involve literally giving money to other people are, in essence, asking other individuals to pay for something for someone else. When people demand universal coverage to be paid for by "the government" what they are really asking for is their neighbors pay for their health care. Oddly, I have seen few movements to try to start health care charities. How many people who support government health care would be willing to go door to door asking their neighbors to chip in to pay for their own health care?

Or let me be even more explicit: Federal taxes represent days of the year that you work exclusively for the federal government.  Let's say you pay 30% of your taxes to the federal government.  That's about 120 days. 4 months. January, February, March, April . Those are the 4 months that you work exclusively for the federal government. When you start looking at it like that, you start to view things a bit differently.

When someone throws up their hands and says "let's have the government do this" they are really asking the 50% of the adult population who pays taxes to do it for them. We already, for example, work 2 weeks each year just paying the interest on the debt. Isn't that nice?  And because the government is so wasteful, the 50% who pay taxes end up working more days for the government than would have been necessary otherwise.

You say you like Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare? Well, if you're like me, you are already working 50 days each year to pay for it.  Imagine what you could do if those 7 weeks of income were instead put into some sort of private saving's account or a mutual fund or heck, saved towards buying a house? But instead, it goes to social security and unfortunately, it's a rotten investment for most of us. How rotten, how about this: If you were to pay say $5,000 per year from age 20 to 30 and then never pay another cent after that into savings, at an annual investment rate of 7% (a little less than the S&P 500 average) then at age 65 you would have around $600,000. Let's say you you received payments over the next 30 years (until you were 95) from it.  That would be over $20,000 per year for 30 year! And remember, this is with eliminating saving even one penny more after you turned 30. Most people would likely continue to save something for retirement, this just illustrates how extremely wasteful Social Security et al is.  Instead, we pay and pay and pay and for what? A bunch of little checks that had made no interest at all. And why? Because a bunch of people successfully argued that we should just throw up our hands and let the government take care of retirement for us. And so now we work 2 months each year for the government for the rest of our non-retired lives so that we can get a bunch of little checks.

Of course, the counter to this, which is valid, is that these programs help the sick, the poor, and the unfortunate. I think most people are willing to work several days each year to help them. Unfortunately while supporting the sick, poor, and unfortunate we also support the lazy, the foolish, and the unscrupulous. And it is very hard for the government to make a distinction between the two groups.  Which is precisely why so many Americans, such as myself, oppose programs that replace individualism with collectivism. If it's something we could really do for ourselves, then it's probably better to do ourselves. And to protect the sick, the poor, and the unfortunate private institutions or at worse the state and local governments are better off doing that -- because they are much better equipped to tailor their programs to the needs of their constituents than some far off bureaucrat.

I am okay with the current tax system - if I make more, I can afford to pay more. I'm fine with that.  What I am against is a system in which we give up personal responsibility to ourselves and our community to some far off government bureaucrat who will never be able to do the job as efficiently as we could do for ourselves.


Comments (Page 1)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Feb 15, 2004
Well said Brad. While compassion for others is a noble thing and a valuable asset to a man, it is dangerous when somebody gets carried away with their emotions and generosity and wants to give these "poor unfortunate people" handouts. So where is the line drawn to devide the needy and poor from the lazy and complacent?

How do you boil a frog? throw it in a pot of boiling water? No he'll jump right back out. What you do is put it in a pot of just warm water on a stove. Then turn up the heat just a little; and then a little more; and a little more until--bingo. How does that work? Haven't we all at some point done that with a bath a child? So as year by year programs are formed, we take what was once our own responsibility and pass it to our government, and the water grows warmer.

I sure love the Statue of Liberty, a beautifully sculpted gift to our nation from not too long ago. But I wonder if the "Statue of Responsibility" would have been a better name? Maybe that would remind that with liberty comes responsibility.
on Feb 15, 2004
Monetary policy is—aside from war—the primary tool of state aggrandizement. It ensures the growth of government, finances deficits, rewards special interests, and fixes elections. Without it, the federal leviathan would collapse, and we could return to the republic of the Founding Fathers.

Our monetary system is not only politically abusive, it also causes inflation and the business cycle. What is to be done?

In answer to that question, the Mises Institute is pleased to present this fourth and slightly expanded edition of Murray N. Rothbard's classic What Has Government Done to Our Money?.

First published in 1964, this is one of Professor Rothbard's most influential works, despite its length. I can't count the number of times academics and nonacademics alike have told me that it forever changed the way they looked at monetary policy. No one, having read this book, hears the pronouncements of Fed officials with awe, or reads monetary texts with credulity. What Has Government Done to Our Money? is the best introduction to money, bar none. The prose is straightforward, the logic relentless, the facts compelling—as in all of Professor Rothbard's writings.

His themes here are theoretical, political, and historical. On theory, he agrees with Ludwig von Mises that money originated through voluntary exchanges on the market. No social contract or government edict brought money into being. It is a natural outgrowth of individuals seeking economic relations more complex than barter.

But unlike all other commodities, an increase in the stock of money confers no social benefit, since money's main function is to facilitate the exchange of other goods and services. Indeed, increasing the stock of money through a central bank like the Fed has horrific consequences, and Professor Rothbard provides the clearest explanation available of inflation.

In policy, he argues that the free market can and should be charged with the production and distribution of money. There is no need to make it a monopoly of the U.S. Treasury, let alone of a public-private banking cartel like the Fed.

A successful money needs only a fixed definition rooted in the commodity most suited to a monetary use, and a legal system that enforces contracts and punishes theft and fraud. In a free market, the result has been, and would be, a gold standard.

In such a free-market system, money would be convertible domestically and internationally. Demand deposits would have 100% reserves, while the reserve ratios for time deposits would be subject to the economic prudence of bankers and the watchful eye of the consuming public.

It is, however, the historical dimension of Professor Rothbard's work that makes it so persuasive. Starting with the 19th-century classical gold standard, he ends with the likely emergence of a European Currency Unit and an eventual world fiat money. Especially notable are his explanations of the Bretton Woods system and the closing of the gold window in the early 1970s.

Professor Rothbard shows that government has always and everywhere been the enemy of sound money. Through banking cartels and inflation, government and its favored interests loot the people's earnings, water down the value of the market's money, and cause recessions and depressions.

In mainstream economics, most of this is denied or ignored. The emphasis is always on the "best" way to use monetary policy. What should guide the Fed? The GNP? Interest rates? The yield curve? The foreign exchange value of the dollar? A commodity index? Professor Rothbard would tell us that all such questions presuppose central planning, and are the root of monetary evil.

May this book be distributed far and wide, so that when the next monetary crisis arrives, Americans will, finally, refuse to put up with what the government is doing to our money.

What Has Government Done to Our Money?
on Feb 15, 2004
Gee whiz, Brad.

All government is "collectivism". Let's just get rid of the government then. Back to the good old days, when a serf knew his place. Let's get rid of public libraries, public schools, public health, public police protection, etc. etc. Let the "good old days" reign forth.

Yes, I've heard of backward regions without much government. They seem to be mired in poverty, and/or strife. Some amount of collectivism does help the population in it's entirety. Only someone unschooled in history would argue against this point.

Perhaps Brad doesn't see the wisdom in some form of universal health care - because you're "really just asking a neighbour to pay for your health care."

Yes, Brad, that's exactly the point. God forbid that you should ever be in the circumstance that you have to choose between draining all of your life savings, home equity, et.al. to save your life relating to some health crisis - or - leaving something behind for your family. Hell of a choice isn't it?

Well, perhaps the person was lazy to get cancer, get in the car crash, etc. Thankfully, I've never faced that, hope I never do - but yes, I've been only too happy to help out "collectively" as it were, as mandated by my country's tax system and allocation of resources.

What I see from conservatives like Brad is an idealized version of the world - "what things could be like, if only everyone would try harder, appply themselves etc". What I see from the liberals is that "none of the circumstances/challenges people face are they able to overcome by themselves". Unfortunately, I don't see any new thinking here. Just the same old, same old.

The whole thing cuts a lot deeper than people who make comments like these are able to understand, I think. I would say that to some extent, I had been one in the past. Until you've been up close and personal in a situation seeing the unfortunate, you don't really realize how many obsticle they face - some mental (they often don't believe in themselves), some educational (they often have low educational skills), some historical (they are often from weak family systems, sometimes abusive), and sometimes they just lack resilence (they just can't/don't seem to bounce back from hardships like Brad or I might).

Until the reading crisis is solved (that's about 45% of the US population that can't read at a proficient level), and the problems surrounding those with learning disabilities (around 20% of the population) who are mired in poverty, low-esteem, drug-abuse and resultant criminal activities [see the connection here??] are dealt with, I think it's ridiculous to point this as a problem with laziness.

Would a little collectivism help here? You're damn right it would - that society hasn't "stepped up to the plate" here is to it's enduring shame.

But that's just my thoughts.

Jay

[By the way Brad, if one's federal taxes represent 120 days of labor as you state, and are 30% of the total taxes as you state, that implies a person works for the government the entire year.]




on Feb 16, 2004
But what is sadder yet, Brad, is that the government believes it can do a better job of taking care of everyone.The American government has never gotton over the fall of the twenties.It was ashamed to the core.A lot of People back then were responsible,they had done everything right,worked hard bought homes saved money,then,bang!! the greed kicked in at the slightest sign of trouble,you talk about insider information,People that had saved thousands were wiped out, My Grandfather and Father among them.Some meaningful government programs was set up as a protection.FDIC, Social Security,etc. then protection became obligation,then demand,then schemes began.Lawers were[and still are] finding ways to pry open the money box ,making people believe that it wasn't a bad thing because so many people paid into it that what they wrenched from the system would not be missed.Responsibility?The crumb at the bottom or the crumb at the top?
on Feb 16, 2004
The Biggest Bomb in Bush's Budget

His monstrous debt pile-up means lots of bad things, with starvation funding for education, R&D, and infrastructure the worst
on Feb 16, 2004
Catch Me If You Can

Money: The Greatest Hoax On Earth
on Feb 16, 2004
What I don't like about government taxation is the concept that some people don't pay taxes. I have no problem with someone not earning much money and therefore getting more back in benefit than they pay. But the concept of someone earning less than x% not paying any tax is wrong.

Everyone should pay a fixed rate of tax on every penny they earn. Social welfare can then redistribute it's agreed share of the tax among those who need it. At least everyone then contributes in proportion to their earnings.

Paul.
on Feb 16, 2004
I can do most of the things dear to my heart by myself. I do them. But I cannot help the family in trouble with the car accident or the illness. But since the government is me too I want the government to do what I alone cannot. So yes, health coverage for everyone is what this government should do. My own health insurance as an individual costs me between $450 and $795 a month. This multiplied over a year is expensive. I do not know what it would cost the government per year to cover me and that I would pay through my taxes. I know for certain it would not be more than the six to eight thousand dollars I pay privately. So, Brad, when you pay the government through your taxes you are only paying for your own coverage. You are not paying for those less fortunate. But those less fortunate are helped. How can this be wrong?
on Feb 16, 2004
Everyone should pay a fixed rate of tax on every penny they earn. Social welfare can then redistribute it's agreed share of the tax among those who need it. At least everyone then contributes in proportion to their earnings.


So are you proposing a flat tax? Or do you support the idea that those below the federal poverty line, which is the amount the government has specified as the absolute minimum needed to have the necessities of life, should pay some of the money, that they don't have to the government? Sounds silly to me.

Cheers
on Feb 16, 2004
I'd preer a system where there is a minimum tax of say 10%, even if you're poor. But goes up to 33% based on your income.
on Feb 16, 2004
Just curious Brad, Does your libertarian/self-responsibility argument also apply to our farmers? Corporate subsidy? Are you a free trade afficiando? foreign aid?

(Can you imagine how many lobbyists would have to find new jobs?)

or

Does your concern remain wholely with the nameless, undefined group of the lazy and shiftless.
on Feb 16, 2004
I'd preer a system where there is a minimum tax of say 10%, even if you're poor.


I can see your point, but my point is, if you're poor, you aren't even making enough to fulfill your basic needs.

Cheers
on Feb 16, 2004
What everyone fails to mention, whether intentionally or not, is the fact that HEY, I work HARD FOR WHAT I'VE GOT. Why should I give what I got to that moron who is obviously qualified to get a job SOMEWHERE (Would you like fries with that?) but doesn't because they know someone else will FORCE ME to give it to them.

See, you can argue with logic, or emotion, or both. Make brilliant speeches, point out biased facts, cite famous people..but it comes down to this:
DO YOU WANT TO PAY FOR SOMETHING YOU'LL NEVER GET?

Money is there to buy things. Now, if I WANT to help soandso out with cancer, I will. I shouldn't be forced to. When did the government become God?
If we're all created equally, why, Braingo, is YOUR OPINION BETTER THAN MINE? I know, deep in my heart, what I want better than you.

I know how to take care of myself better than you, and if I should be at a loss for something, GOD FORBID, I GET MYSELF THE HELP I REQUIRE.
But poor so and so is mental unstable..Now, if you want to lend a hand, feel free to do so..but How dare you force me to!

Hm, okay..Let taxes be paid on a VOLUNTARY BASIS. If you want to help out the sick and the poor, do so, but leave me out of it. Leave MY money out of it.
I'd rather spit on a homeless bum than give him money because some damn dirty humanitarian forced me to do so. It's degrading to both the bum and me.
Now, if I want to help John Smith the Homeless guy get his medical bills paid, I'll go into the doctor's office and write a check if I can afford it, if I can't and I still want to help, I'll find LIKE MINDED INDIVIDUALS. I won't go to Brad Wardell and put a gun to his head and make him pay for John Smith if he doesn't want to.
IT'S ROBBERY. THEFT. ILLEGAL.

Now, is it my duty as a human being to be compassionate to another human being? Feck NO it isn't my duty. But is it my desire? Sure. I can be compassionate, thoughtful, and charitable. I've given money away by the fistfulls to help those in need. I've taken out Gigantic Loans to assist my fellow friends, families, and even strangers..But there is no way in HELL I ever did it because I was forced to.

If I want to use the services of the government, then I AM responsible to pay for the services I use. I like safe drinking water, I don't mind paying to make sure it remains safe. I hate foreign radicals who wish death upon me for my nationality, so Damn right I will pay for my military to guard my borders.
I Resent with a ferocity you could never fathom having to pay for some schlub who does nothing but stay at home masturbating to porn on his brand new computer he could afford cause he didn't A) Have to pay taxes on the money he earned cause he was an 'unfortunate' poor person who got Social Assistance which provided everything he needed for survival, INCLUDING RENT FREE HOUSING, A FREE PHONE TO USE, FREE FOOD...and his brand new cadillac he bought the other day with the spinning rims.

To hell with him and all you bleeding hearts who feel you have the right to force me to do jack because YOU have a vision of some Eutopian society in which someone else wipes your butt for you. Lazy sobs.

Ahem, with that off my chest, back to my hard working job that pays barely higher than minimum wage in which I am taxed to pay for services and goods I'll never see.
on Feb 16, 2004
Mayhaps my blog will involve the inheriting of evils of past sins and the way the modern society punishes us.
on Feb 16, 2004
Lunaticus,

Damn, how many Cadillac-driving, slacker, masturbators do you know?

; )
3 Pages1 2 3