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 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Feb 16, 2004
Lunaticus, your taxes pay for far more than just welfare programs, in fact a MAJORITY of your taxes pay for stuff other than welfare programs. If taxes were voluntary, no one would pay, then there would be no roads, no schools, no armed forces, no national parks, etc.

Cheers
on Feb 16, 2004
EXACTLY, blackstar!

For how everyone is so holier than thou with their tax reform ideas and for everyone's two cents how we should spend other peoples' money, no one would pay if they had a choice! It makes every argument reak of hypocricy! Unknowingly, you got my point! Ahahahaha.
Good intentions do not equal great ideas. And that's all this is, good intentions.
I guess what I'm saying is everyone has an opinion, maybe even really good solutions..but never act out on it, never make it happen.

"Hey, bob..I got a great idea..it involves alot of work..How about you do it for me and give me the credit?"

Swift, all too many..all too many. I wish I was one of them, fer shure
on Feb 16, 2004
Alas, one of the responsibilities of sovereign governments is to force the payment of taxes, and as Adam Smith said, take care of all things which private enterprise is incapable of doing.

Cheers
on Feb 16, 2004
To force the payment of taxes is to steal, just in a legal fashion because we all know deep down it is nessecary to maintain our comfy coushy lives and to avoid harm, such as imprisonment. Nobody wants to pay it, most everyone has to, it is a responsibility.
And as Brad is saying, we can take care of ourselves better than others, in most instances. "Take care of all things which private enterprise is incapable of doing"..
Healthcare is within private enterprise's ability of things to do. It's a SERVICE which requires PAYMENT. It's not something you should be granted like it was some constitutional right. Nor should you have to pay for someone elses' services.
on Feb 16, 2004

Lunaticus, your taxes pay for far more than just welfare programs, in fact a MAJORITY of your taxes pay for stuff other than welfare programs. If taxes were voluntary, no one would pay, then there would be no roads, no schools, no armed forces, no national parks, etc.

They do? Ever looked at the federal budget? The majority of it is for programs that involve taking your money and sending it as a check to someone else.  Social Security + Medicaid + Medicare + Pensions + Welfare represent over 50% of the budget.

I have in front of me the annual report of the USA 1998 edition by Bagby. It's non-partisan, it just a bunch of statistics essentially. Obviously it's a few years out of date but it's still close enough for our discussion:

Social Security: 23%
Welfare: 7%
Medicare: 12%
Medicaid: 8%

That's not including Federal employee retirement (4%).

 

on Feb 17, 2004
Brad,
I don't agree that pensions should be considered as a welfare payment. Most workers have worked long and hard for that pension. You could (and I believe you have previously) argued that people should nto pay this and invest for their own pensions, but that still doesn't make this a hand out. More like a bank returning money to investors.

Jeb, as for everyone paying tax. If somneone earns 500 dollars in a year they should be paying 50 dollars tax. They'll most likely then receive thousands back from the government in welfare and aid. It's the principle that matters here not the actual sums. Everyone should contribute. Everyone should belong. That 50 dollars gives that person the right to stand up and say 'I belong and I contribute to this country'. It also serves to bring nearly everyone into the tax net and reduce the current problem of corruption to keep earnings below the taxable level.

Paul.
on Feb 17, 2004
Ahh, I see what you're saying, then let me put it to you this way, those people do pay a certain amount in taxes, and come April they receive it back as a refund. I should know, when I was flipping burgers to get through college, I had some percentage of my check sent off to the federal government.

Cheers
on Feb 17, 2004

I don't agree that pensions should be considered as a welfare payment. Most workers have worked long and hard for that pension. You could (and I believe you have previously) argued that people should nto pay this and invest for their own pensions, but that still doesn't make this a hand out. More like a bank returning money to investors.

The people currently receiving social security get vastly more than they ever would have gotten even if they'd invested that money.  If you pay in say $2,000 in your life time and you get $50,000 out, that's a hand out. Ask someone currently retired to produce one of their pay stubs sometime from before they retired and look at how little they paid into Social Security. Then look at their monthly payments. Assume they live until age 85 and you do the math. It's not a small hand out. It's a HUUUGEE hand out.

The government has become pretty good at disguising welfare these days. They get everyone to pay some trivial amount in in exchange to get some massive back. Then people will say "Hey, I contributed to that!"

on Feb 17, 2004
The people currently receiving social security get vastly more than they ever would have gotten even if they'd invested that money.


Everyone over a certain age gets social security. No matter how much money they make.

Cheers
on Feb 17, 2004
Precisely - it is a welfare program.
on Feb 17, 2004
Then it's a matter of semantics. I believe welfare only benefits those who are poorly off. Since social security doesn't necessarily do that, I don't count it as such. Oh, and retirement benefits for federal employees are not welfare since any company, including yours, pays these benefits.

Cheers
on Feb 17, 2004
It's not semantics. Welfare is getting something for nothing. It's redistribution of wealth which is not what the federal government was designed to do.
on Feb 17, 2004
Ahh, but it's not getting something for nothing, not any more anyways, very few people are still alive, in fact it's possible that no one is still alive who never paid anything into social security.

Cheers
on Feb 18, 2004
Brad,
I have no problem with someone who paid the required amount into social security getting a full pension. Furthermore I would not classify it as welfare. There are too many variables to simplify it to a 'paid X, gets Y' situation. They may have paid a higher tax rate, they may have had conscription, they may have actually raised their kids well. There are plenty of other ways the state may have got more benefit out of them.
In my opinion a state pension is a responsibility which I like to have ceded to the government. The government should set social security contributions at a level that will guarentee a reasonable pension though. It should also encourage people to contribute more into additional pensions, letting them know exactly how much their government pension will be worth so they can make that decision.

Paul.
3 Pages1 2 3