Why do my colleague and I pay as much in taxes?

[Pliny]

Meh, last page has devolved into one huge circular argument.

Here's the point, a transportation network is needed for an industrialized economy to function. Having every road be private makes no sense, especially in cities. Who is gonna pay for which street in the city? The complexities of something like that are ridiculous. There are tons of businesses or residences on every block of every road.

I wouldn't be so sure that "having every road be private makes no sense". There are other agencies than government that can own and look after roads and there can even be community co-operatives that can own roads and even profit from them. The tons of businesses and residences on every block could get together with the tons of businesses and residences on other blocks and build and maintain roads.

As for roads to "nowhere", those don't exist. Roads get built to where there is a need for roads. The government doesn't just automatically build roads cause 1 person decides to live in the middle of nowhere. I could go set up a shack in the middle of the wilderness, send the government a letter demanding they build a road, and I can guarantee you it wouldn't happen. There are plenty of even larger communities that do not have road access because it would be prohibitively expensive to build a road. Many locations in the north can only be accessed by airplane (or by hiking through the wilderness for months).

The government doesn't build roads for one person it builds roads for what it deems is the common good - in other words, where it decides. The Alaskan highway, and the Trans-Canada highway were initially built for military purposes. The government will build a road to where no one lives if it has a purpose to, like up to a radar tower, usually located in nowhere land.

For those few locations and types of roads where private operation or user-pay systems are logistically viable, they are already in place. For example, the Coquihalla highway in BC was tolled until recently (they took off the toll when it repayed its cost). Some of the new bridges around Vancouver are/will be tolled. These are examples of transportation structures where it is feasible to charge people for using them. Many of these are being built partially by private companies (through PPPs). But for many roads that's just not possible, and that's why the government has to step in to provide a functional and complete transportation network.

Why must government be the agency to provide a functional and complete transportation network? Couldn't a private company provide that? One that perhaps is even community owned and provides a dividend for the citizens?

It is easy to say that government is the only agency that can provide a particular service when it is a monopoly doing so. When there is no comparison in actuality there is no real way to tell what would evolve, there is only conjecture.

You seem to believe that a private system would be a complete failure but how could it be a success would be the question. All the problems you can dream up must be resolved without a government option. If goverments were forbidden to build roads by a Constitutional resolution you would have to resolve the problems that a private system would encounter not just dream up reasons why it wouldn't work.

The Lion's Gate bridge was built privately and so were many roads before WWII.

[Bonam]

I wouldn't be so sure that "having every road be private makes no sense". There are other agencies than government that can own and look after roads and there can even be community co-operatives that can own roads and even profit from them. The tons of businesses and residences on every block could get together with the tons of businesses and residences on other blocks and build and maintain roads.

In essence forming a small local government that would draw funds from all these businesses and residences and use them to construct roads for the "common good". Making it on a smaller scale and not calling it "government" doesn't mean it's not functioning in exactly the same way.

The government doesn't build roads for one person it builds roads for what it deems is the common good - in other words, where it decides. The Alaskan highway, and the Trans-Canada highway were initially built for military purposes. The government will build a road to where no one lives if it has a purpose to, like up to a radar tower, usually located in nowhere land.

And the problem with that is?

Why must government be the agency to provide a functional and complete transportation network? Couldn't a private company provide that? One that perhaps is even community owned and provides a dividend for the citizens?

The reason I say government should provide roads is because roads basically benefit everyone that lives in a particular area (on/near that road), but except for bridges and highways, there is no real way to charge users for using roads on a pay-per-use basis. Thus to build roads in cities a private agency would effectively have to set up deals where neighborhoods pay a collective amount of money and in exchange it builds roads for them. The collection scheme would necessarily be very similar to a tax. So even if it was a private agency it would function in a very similar way to a government.

[Wilber]

We have lots of private roads in BC, they are called logging roads. In many cases the logging companies will let the public use them on the understanding that they might get run over by a logging truck. They accept no responsibility, their trucks have the right of way, period.

[Pliny]

In essence forming a small local government that would draw funds from all these businesses and residences and use them to construct roads for the "common good". Making it on a smaller scale and not calling it "government" doesn't mean it's not functioning in exactly the same way.

There is a huge difference between how a business operates and a government operates.

A government has the ability to legally use force and coercion. A business has to operate through co-operation and contract.

And the problem with that is? [building roads to nowhere]

Granted, building a road for a radar tower could be considered a legitimate action of government as defense is a legitimate mandate.

On the prairies I know they build a road every section, or mile, north and south and east and west. I don't think all of them are necessary.

The reason I say government should provide roads is because roads basically benefit everyone that lives in a particular area (on/near that road), but except for bridges and highways, there is no real way to charge users for using roads on a pay-per-use basis. Thus to build roads in cities a private agency would effectively have to set up deals where neighborhoods pay a collective amount of money and in exchange it builds roads for them. The collection scheme would necessarily be very similar to a tax. So even if it was a private agency it would function in a very similar way to a government.

With the difference being a co-operative invitation of participation as opposed to a coercive law demanding payment even if there is no personal benefit.

The whole argument on this thread is about why someone should pay the same for a government service when he is not using a service as much as another and why user fees shouldn't apply above the basic collective taxation to provide the benefit.

The reason why government takes over responsibility for a service such as health care or education or road building is because the collective alleviates individual burden and eliminates inability to afford the benefits of education, health care or roads. Applying a user fee eliminates that benefit and defeats the entire purpose of the service being government run. It may as well be privately run.

[GostHacked]

There might come a time when you need the fire dept or ambulance, or even police to show up at your house. Imagine those fees to be pretty high.

[Wilber]

There might come a time when you need the fire dept or ambulance, or even police to show up at your house. Imagine those fees to be pretty high.

You might have to give the 911 operator your VISA number before they will talk to you.

[GostHacked]

You might have to give the 911 operator your VISA number before they will talk to you.

Then I'd classify it as non-essential non-emergency services.

[Pliny]

There might come a time when you need the fire dept or ambulance, or even police to show up at your house. Imagine those fees to be pretty high.

Why would the fire dept. or an ambulance, or the police show up at my place if they aren't going to be paid? They must already be contracted and compensated. A person who has just lost everything in a fire or has suffered devastating loss at the hands of criminals or needs hospitalization may not be in a particularly good position to be making payment for emergency services. Could the private sector provide these services more efficiently and economically than government? It is difficult to imagine when you are used to the nanny state and you are not encouraged to look at alternatives but if one really looks at it the nanny state is a pretty inefficient means of providing these services.

I will add it is mainly because they have no measure of value and thus no means to determine costs. Costs are primarily determined by public sector unions bidding up wages and benefits in the respective industries and the result is evident in today's bloated public sector that faces no economic reality insisting upon it's own importance and continuance of it's monopoly service which becomes economically forced to take measures to sustain itself by cutting service levels and introducing user fees and fines. The public faced with lowered and inadequate levels of service find they must supplement the service by privately hiring security guards for property safety, building gated communities, installing alarm systems and barriers to criminality. Government services are eventually contracted out if there is no legal monopoly created by the government, as is the case with health care in Canada. Private medical services are essentially illegal to buy here. This is a recipe for disaster. Services can only be cut so far before a monopoly public health care industry can be exposed for what it is - a means for some to live off the avails of others. I find self-righteous indignation is the general response to such criticisms and their existence is fully justified by hard work, long hours, endless paper work, a thankless clientele, a grueling, screening educational process, but it says nothing of the necessity to constantly reduce, limit or even deny services and add additional fees. It becomes entirely a concern looking after it's own laundry and securing it's legal monopolistic position in society.

[bloodyminded]

Why would the fire dept. or an ambulance, or the police show up at my place if they aren't going to be paid? They must already be contracted and compensated. A person who has just lost everything in a fire or has suffered devastating loss at the hands of criminals or needs hospitalization may not be in a particularly good position to be making payment for emergency services. Could the private sector provide these services more efficiently and economically than government? It is difficult to imagine when you are used to the nanny state and you are not encouraged to look at alternatives but if one really looks at it the nanny state is a pretty inefficient means of providing these services.

Fire departments used to be privatized. Epic failure. Some matters are not suitable for the notion that "profit is everything."

Again...they used to do it this way. Didn't work.

[Pliny]

Fire departments used to be privatized. Epic failure. Some matters are not suitable for the notion that "profit is everything."

Again...they used to do it this way. Didn't work.

Epic Failure or government intervention? Saying it didn't work doesn't explain much.

What went wrong?

It seems "profit is everything" is most important to those who wish to have their hands in someone else's pocket, and true to government and proponents of the nanny state, profit is something that needs to be heavily regulated and documented to ensure a fair share is received in the treasury.

While I agree that most corporations today mistakenly operate from the "controller's" office in the accounting department and not out of an enthusiasm to provide a product or service for the benefit of society I find the degradation of "money" and government's manipulation of it's form and supply the main culprit in the downward spiral.

[bloodyminded]

Epic Failure or government intervention? Saying it didn't work doesn't explain much.

What went wrong?

If you had problems paying previously, your little fire might get...ignored. Plus there was great rivalry among competing departments...competition, sacred cow that it is to some people, does not in every instance mean "better service and prices for the consumer." That's a rule of thumb, not a law of physics.

While I agree that most corporations today mistakenly operate from the "controller's" office in the accounting department and not out of an enthusiasm to provide a product or service for the benefit of society I find the degradation of "money" and government's manipulation of it's form and supply the main culprit in the downward spiral.

I have been convinced by many capitalists' arguments. Often they're excellent. But there are some cases where the need for profit can be deleterious.

Another example is when the waterworks were privatized in Bolivia. Costs (to the consumer) skyrocketed...and in a poverty-stricken nation like Bolivia, it was a literal majority of human beings who couldn't pay for their water. Simply could not afford it. They rioted...which is the sane response in such a situation. The water went back as a government service.

In a case like that, the only defense of the privatization is that of invoking the principles of capitalism...as if these principles are more important than the human beings which they are meant to serve.

It's axiomatic that economic systems are not sacred, and have exactly zero purpose beyond how they serve human beings. In the abstract, such a basic truism is not that difficult to forget, unfortunately.

The government is better suited to running crucial services such a fire departments and police, because government services can run at a loss, making up funds elsewhere. And while obviously that's not the ideal by any stretch, it's preferable to having some assholes refuse to put out your burning house.

Edited March 4, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Wilber]

It is a mistake to think that competition is solely confined to the private sector.

[Michael Hardner]

What I can't figure out, though, is why our systems of economics don't change more as a result of communication changes. Maybe they do - I mean the world got a lot smaller with communication changes in the 1990s, allowing global investment to happen more easily, and causing friction.

But can't a similar change happen to socialism ? It's big drawback was that central planning was slow and cumbersome, so why isn't that improved somewhat by web technology ?

[blueblood]

But can't a similar change happen to socialism ? It's big drawback was that central planning was slow and cumbersome, so why isn't that improved somewhat by web technology ?

Lack of incentive. If I'm going to get paid anyway, why should I have to work harder if I'm getting a guaranteed cheque. Also, why should I contribute more if the next guy contributes next to nothing and yet gets the same pay I do?

Never underestimate the WIFM factor...

[Michael Hardner]

Lack of incentive. If I'm going to get paid anyway, why should I have to work harder if I'm getting a guaranteed cheque. Also, why should I contribute more if the next guy contributes next to nothing and yet gets the same pay I do?

Never underestimate the WIFM factor...

There's nothing in socialism that says that that has to happen.

[blueblood]

There's nothing in socialism that says that that has to happen.

But that's human nature, and we found out what side won...

[Michael Hardner]

But that's human nature, and we found out what side won...

I mean there's nothing that says people can't be fired for poor performance, or rewarded for good performance...

[bush_cheney2004]

I mean there's nothing that says people can't be fired for poor performance, or rewarded for good performance...

Sometimes there is pay for no performance at all. We call that welfare.

[blueblood]

I mean there's nothing that says people can't be fired for poor performance, or rewarded for good performance...

Except that's essentially what it's all about, having a common denominator. That person who is fired will still be taken care of, and what's the reward for good performance a thumbs up from the boss?

[Michael Hardner]

Except that's essentially what it's all about, having a common denominator. That person who is fired will still be taken care of, and what's the reward for good performance a thumbs up from the boss?

Is that how you're put together ?

[Bonam]

There's nothing in socialism that says that that has to happen.

Of course there is, it is the very foundation of socialism.

I mean there's nothing that says people can't be fired for poor performance, or rewarded for good performance...

Yeah, that's called capitalism. When the owner of an enterprise wants to maximize their profits they reward good employees and fire bad ones. In socialism, how would this get done? There is no owner of a company who cares about the profit and thus the performance of employees, there is just a giant government bureaucracy. The bureaucrats, like everyone else, want to do as little work as possible to keep their jobs. And it would take an enormous amount of work for a government bureaucracy to properly determine who is performing well, who is performing poorly, and compensate them appropriately. Thus, it doesn't happen.

Besides, in a purely socialist society, what good would it do to make more money? All the same goods and services are available to everyone.

Is that how you're put together ?

Large scale experiments have shown how humans are "put together". They work hard when they have something to gain, and they do the minimum possible if they have nothing to gain. Hence why communist economies struggled to produce the basic needs of survival while capitalist economies produced such prosperity as had never before been seen in history.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Bonam

[Pliny]

If you had problems paying previously, your little fire might get...ignored.

How could that be avoided?

Plus there was great rivalry among competing departments...competition, sacred cow that it is to some people, does not in every instance mean "better service and prices for the consumer." That's a rule of thumb, not a law of physics.

As a rule of thumb it is fairly accurate. The introduction of time into the equation is necessary as services and prices are in a constant state of flux, unless there is no competition.

I have been convinced by many capitalists' arguments. Often they're excellent. But there are some cases where the need for profit can be deleterious.

What is profit? Is it merely money?

Conditions of emergency, such as fires, accidents or illness do not lend themselves well to the negotiation of a contract of exchange and must therefore be entered into well in advance either by the individual or the community. Competing for the customers attention is not optimum when his house is on fire or his leg is broken. It would be idiotic to think that a fireman would stand idly by a blazing inferno until the details of his recompense were settled.

Should anyone profit on the misfortune of others? Paying firemen to sit idly by until the call of duty is a little inefficient. Should there be "professional" firefighters?

A lot of them have second jobs because they can sleep when they are on duty at the firehall. Sometimes they get called out to a fire and miss some sleep, not unlike most of us.

Should we as a community maybe teach basic firefighting skills in our "education" so that we can help each other out? If there were professional firefighters then they would be really good at it, I suppose.

I suppose we are locked into our current monopoly system of firefighting so changes are not about to happen.

Another example is when the waterworks were privatized in Bolivia. Costs (to the consumer) skyrocketed...and in a poverty-stricken nation like Bolivia, it was a literal majority of human beings who couldn't pay for their water. Simply could not afford it. They rioted...which is the sane response in such a situation. The water went back as a government service.

Was the privatization a government sanctioned monopoly? I would have to read more about it to determine for my own understanding what occurred there.

Many times, such as the energy shortage that occurred in California a few years ago, seeming failures of the market are because of government regulation or interference of some nature.

In a case like that, the only defense of the privatization is that of invoking the principles of capitalism...as if these principles are more important than the human beings which they are meant to serve.

It's axiomatic that economic systems are not sacred, and have exactly zero purpose beyond how they serve human beings. In the abstract, such a basic truism is not that difficult to forget, unfortunately.

The government is better suited to running crucial services such a fire departments and police, because government services can run at a loss, making up funds elsewhere. And while obviously that's not the ideal by any stretch, it's preferable to having some assholes refuse to put out your burning house.

Actually, I have heard places have burned down under the government model because some asshole has refused to put out your burning house on the grounds it is not in his jurisdiction.

We aren't about to find out soon that a private police force or firefighting force would be better. We have a monopoly that will fight to maintain itself if that monopoly is ever threatened.

The Americans have options in the direction of health care right now. Obama wants to create a monopoly and thus limit future options for change. Government sanctioned monopolies have the basic problem of escalating the cost of service but then again inflation and the fiat monetary system serves to obfuscate actual increases.

[Michael Hardner]

Of course there is, it is the very foundation of socialism.

That's absolutely incorrect. The quote is:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

Yeah, that's called capitalism. When the owner of an enterprise wants to maximize their profits they reward good employees and fire bad ones.

This is sometimes true, historically. At other times, they purchased a slave to do that work. Still other times they would do things like kill strikers to make unions seem attractive.

In socialism, how would this get done? There is no owner of a company who cares about the profit and thus the performance of employees, there is just a giant government bureaucracy. The bureaucrats, like everyone else, want to do as little work as possible to keep their jobs. And it would take an enormous amount of work for a government bureaucracy to properly determine who is performing well, who is performing poorly, and compensate them appropriately. Thus, it doesn't happen.

So when Socialism arrives, all human nature changes ? People just lose pride in their work and don't care about anything ?

Besides, in a purely socialist society, what good would it do to make more money? All the same goods and services are available to everyone.

All the same goods and services are available to everyone here too, aren't they ? Things are sold to people who have the money to buy them, in both systems.

Large scale experiments have shown how humans are "put together". They work hard when they have something to gain, and they do the minimum possible if they have nothing to gain. Hence why communist economies struggled to produce the basic needs of survival while capitalist economies produced such prosperity as had never before been seen in history.

Socialist societies aren't set up so you get nothing by working, whether we're talking about pure Marxism or Scandanavian-type socialism.

[Bonam]

That's absolutely incorrect. The quote is:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

First, that quote is related to Marxist communism, not to "socialism". Second, just because something is a "motto", doesn't mean that other things, like what I mention, aren't also fundamental results/consequences.

This is sometimes true, historically. At other times, they purchased a slave to do that work. Still other times they would do things like kill strikers to make unions seem attractive.

Slavery is now prohibited by law and not a relevant issue to this discussion. So is killing strikers, except perhaps in extreme cases if the police are called in and have to act while the strikers are taking violent action.

So when Socialism arrives, all human nature changes ? People just lose pride in their work and don't care about anything ?

No, human nature stays the same, it is the society and the set of incentives it offers for working hard that changes. When working hard means becoming rich and working poorly means getting fired and becoming poor, you are motivated to work hard. When working hard means staying at your same dull job and getting payed the same as working poorly, you are motivated to work poorly, because there is no reason to work hard.

All the same goods and services are available to everyone here too, aren't they ? Things are sold to people who have money to buy them, in both systems.

Like you said, the idea was "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". That is, even if someone has no ability and thus can earn no money, they are still entitled to everything they need. In fact, they are entitled to exactly the same rewards as someone with a lot of ability, that person is also entitled to everything they need.

Socialist societies aren't set up so you get nothing by working, whether we're talking about pure Marxism or Scandanavian-type socialism.

The extent to which you are rewarded for working is equal to the extent to which the society is not really socialist. In a purely communist society, if you are unable to work, you are still entitled to exactly the same rewards as someone who is able. Once you introduce a system of money that pays differently for different types of jobs, that is no longer pure communism. But even in such a system, there is no real incentive to work harder or better, because your pay is determined by the government mandated setting for the type of job you are doing. Scandinavian socialism is an entirely different beast, it has evolved from capitalism rather than starting with socialist ideas, thus it is basically the same as Canada except with even higher taxes.

[Michael Hardner]

First, that quote is related to Marxist communism, not to "socialism". Second, just because something is a "motto", doesn't mean that other things, like what I mention, aren't also fundamental results/consequences.

Let's be clear here - your assertion was that laziness effectively was the very foundation of socialism. Can you clarify what you meant then ?

Slavery is now prohibited by law and not a relevant issue to this discussion. So is killing strikers, except perhaps in extreme cases if the police are called in and have to act while the strikers are taking violent action.

So we're not talking about capitalism and Marxism at the time of Marx, then, when slavery was still an option.

Your quote:

In socialism, how would this get done? There is no owner of a company who cares about the profit and thus the performance of employees, there is just a giant government bureaucracy.

It's just not clear to me what brand of capitalism and socialism you're talking about. It's almost like you're comparing 21st century capitalism to 19th century socialism.

No, human nature stays the same, it is the society and the set of incentives it offers for working hard that changes. When working hard means becoming rich and working poorly means getting fired and becoming poor, you are motivated to work hard. When working hard means staying at your same dull job and getting payed the same as working poorly, you are motivated to work poorly, because there is no reason to work hard.

That's basically true, however it's not really reflected in any socialist society today if that's what we're talking about. You can still be fired for non-performance, and I would submit that that happens far more often in socialist countries than a production-type worker getting "rich" from working hard in a capitalist country.

How much non-union overtime would you work in the US in order to become rich.

Like you said, the idea was "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". That is, even if someone has no ability and thus can earn no money, they are still entitled to everything they need. In fact, they are entitled to exactly the same rewards as someone with a lot of ability, that person is also entitled to everything they need.

Hardly anybody has "no ability". Those who have "no ability" are basically disabled and are taken care of by the state.

The extent to which you are rewarded for working is equal to the extent to which the society is not really socialist. In a purely communist society, if you are unable to work, you are still entitled to exactly the same rewards as someone who is able. Once you introduce a system of money that pays differently for different types of jobs, that is no longer pure communism. But even in such a system, there is no real incentive to work harder or better, because your pay is determined by the government mandated setting for the type of job you are doing. Scandinavian socialism is an entirely different beast, it has evolved from capitalism rather than starting with socialist ideas, thus it is basically the same as Canada except with even higher taxes.

I think you and I both have a good understanding of the basic differences between the systems.

--- --- --- --- ---

Let's look at my point from a different angle. Marxism arose as a response to the industrial revolution, I think we can agree. Since then we have seen many changes... the telegraph, the production line of Henry Ford, the electronic age, the information age.

What changes to societal organization, specifically related to labour, can we see happening in the future ? As we have both stated on this thread, capitalism adopted some of the features of socialism. What for the future ?