What are the most important things for society?

[sideshow]

I am thinking:

Healthcare

Education

Law and Order

Public infastructure

in no particular order.

Are you satisfied when (not how) your tax dollars are used for the above purposes?

Your thoughts?

[August1991]

You are asking an interesting question that, given present technology and methods, has no practical answer.

When you do your grocery shopping, you decide not only how much of your total budget to spend on groceries, but you also decide what groceries to buy. If you are a vegetarian, you don't buy meat. You buy milk, orange juice or Coke, as you prefer.

Our tax dollars are not spent with anything near the same precision, and this is a great shame. So many political problems could be avoided if people honestly stated how much tax they were willing to pay, and how they wanted their tax dollars to be spent. (As an idealist, I believe that some smart individual some time in the future will devise a way to elicit people's honest opinion about this.)

Until then, we will have to make do with the worst of the four ways to spend money: some one else spends your money to buy something for a third person.

[Renegade]

Our tax dollars are not spent with anything near the same precision, and this is a great shame. So many political problems could be avoided if people honestly stated how much tax they were willing to pay, and how they wanted their tax dollars to be spent. (As an idealist, I believe that some smart individual some time in the future will devise a way to elicit people's honest opinion about this.)

Would it be interesting democratic exercise, if as part of completing your tax return, you were able to assign what categories your tax dollars are allocated to. Perhaps a certain portion is mandatiorially allocated to fixed costs, but the rest can be left to the taxpayer to decide. Then it can form the basis of the following years budget which the governmetn would be obligated to follow.

[sideshow]

Our tax dollars are not spent with anything near the same precision, and this is a great shame. So many political problems could be avoided if people honestly stated how much tax they were willing to pay, and how they wanted their tax dollars to be spent. (As an idealist, I believe that some smart individual some time in the future will devise a way to elicit people's honest opinion about this.)

Would it be interesting democratic exercise, if as part of completing your tax return, you were able to assign what categories your tax dollars are allocated to. Perhaps a certain portion is mandatiorially allocated to fixed costs, but the rest can be left to the taxpayer to decide. Then it can form the basis of the following years budget which the governmetn would be obligated to follow.

thats a very novel and interesting idea. im going to digest that and think on.

[ClearWest]

Our tax dollars are not spent with anything near the same precision, and this is a great shame. So many political problems could be avoided if people honestly stated how much tax they were willing to pay, and how they wanted their tax dollars to be spent. (As an idealist, I believe that some smart individual some time in the future will devise a way to elicit people's honest opinion about this.)

Would it be interesting democratic exercise, if as part of completing your tax return, you were able to assign what categories your tax dollars are allocated to. Perhaps a certain portion is mandatiorially allocated to fixed costs, but the rest can be left to the taxpayer to decide. Then it can form the basis of the following years budget which the governmetn would be obligated to follow.

We totally need more choice as to where our money goes! This would be an excellent alternative to the current system. And the politicians would have to adjust their budgets to meet what the people have given them to work with.

In fact, I would take it a step further so that you could decide how much tax you are willing to contribute to the government (if any at all), as well as to which categories.

Let's say someone was a pacifist and they did not wish to support the military--They could choose to not support the military! What good is democracy when we really don't have a choice in important decisions like that. We really don't have a say. We only have a choice in who we want to control us--they're the one's who make the decisions for us. Let us have a say in where we want our money to go!

[Riverwind]

Would it be interesting democratic exercise, if as part of completing your tax return, you were able to assign what categories your tax dollars are allocated to. Perhaps a certain portion is mandatorially allocated to fixed costs, but the rest can be left to the taxpayer to decide. Then it can form the basis of the following years budget which the government would be obligated to follow.

That is what elections are for. You vote for an MP or party that represents your way of thinking. If you think the gun registry is a waste of money then vote conservative. If you dislike funding the military vote NDP. Running a entity as large as a gov't is a complex business and most people are simply not qualified to make decisions about what proportion of money should go where. Do you think the people flipping burgers at McDonald's are qualified to decide what percentage of revenue the company should spend on french fries?

In fact, I would take it a step further so that you could decide how much tax you are willing to contribute to the government (if any at all), as well as to which categories.

A large percentage of the people in society are basically selfish and don't give a damn about anyone but themselves. They would love such as system because it would mean they would have to contribute nothing. This would put a lot of pressure on those who do care to pay and even larger portion of their income because the system could not keep running without some funding.

In other words, such as system is a waste of time unless you have some way to turn people into altruistic saints. And if you can do that I suggest you head over to Iraq first because people there need it much more than we do.

[geoffrey]

You set your standards too high. These are only important in the eyes of the rich welfare states, and should not be entitlements as human rights.

My most important things to society:

- Food to keep you from starving to death

- Water that isn't too toxic and contaminated to drink

- Freedom from oppressive governments

- Law and order (which we agree with)

Once you have these, the State has no further obligation to you.

[Renegade]

That is what elections are for. You vote for an MP or party that represents your way of thinking. If you think the gun registry is a waste of money then vote conservative. If you dislike funding the military vote NDP. Running a entity as large as a gov't is a complex business and most people are simply not qualified to make decisions about what proportion of money should go where. Do you think the people flipping burgers at McDonald's are qualified to decide what percentage of revenue the company should spend on french fries?

An election is too coarse-grained a tool. It only permits a "all or none" choice of a party's platform (assuming they even get around to implementing it). Elections were fine in an age where it was too cumbersome to collect people's feedback on their spending priorites, but in today's world those priorities can be collected with very little overhead. As to your second point, they fact is like it or not the buger flippers have a say in who runs the enterprise via their vote in an election. I don't think it is any more of a stretch to ask them to choose how their tax dollars shoudl be spent. You are asking do I trust the people to decide? My answer is yes I do, because although there will be burger-flippers who have no clue, in aggreate, the population will be able to decide. It's basic fairness, its the people's money, let them decide where to spend it.

[Michael Hardner]

An election is too coarse-grained a tool. It only permits a "all or none" choice of a party's platform (assuming they even get around to implementing it). Elections were fine in an age where it was too cumbersome to collect people's feedback on their spending priorites, but in today's world those priorities can be collected with very little overhead. As to your second point, they fact is like it or not the buger flippers have a say in who runs the enterprise via their vote in an election. I don't think it is any more of a stretch to ask them to choose how their tax dollars shoudl be spent. You are asking do I trust the people to decide? My answer is yes I do, because although there will be burger-flippers who have no clue, in aggreate, the population will be able to decide. It's basic fairness, its the people's money, let them decide where to spend it.

Yes - Burger Flippers, Government Employees, and Bankers all vote but they don't decide directly on priorities. Given the complaints I've seen on this board about the poor choices voters make, I'm surprised that we would trust voters to prioritize our tax dollars this way.

And the idea that we should decide how much tax we pay directly is ridiculous. Revenues would dry up. Remember that we've had voluntarily (ie. charity) welfare in the past and it created a sick and dying underclass that was the shame of society.

Society is necessarily made up of winners and losers. We can, as a group, decide how low we want our losers to be. Low status, or just scraping for their very lives ?

Geoffrey said:

My most important things to society:

- Food to keep you from starving to death

- Water that isn't too toxic and contaminated to drink

- Freedom from oppressive governments

- Law and order (which we agree with)

Once you have these, the State has no further obligation to you.

I'm glad you say implicitly that the State has an obligation to keep you from starving.

The State also intervenes in economic matters in various ways. I would say that these kinds of interventions should be done for the benefit of all.

[Renegade]

Yes - Burger Flippers, Government Employees, and Bankers all vote but they don't decide directly on priorities. Given the complaints I've seen on this board about the poor choices voters make, I'm surprised that we would trust voters to prioritize our tax dollars this way.

And the idea that we should decide how much tax we pay directly is ridiculous. Revenues would dry up. Remember that we've had voluntarily (ie. charity) welfare in the past and it created a sick and dying underclass that was the shame of society.

I for one have not been complaining that voters make poor choices. In my view the government needs to be in service of the population, not the other way around. In any case the taxpayer should have a say in how their taxes are spent.

Also, I never suggested taht we should decide how much tax we pay. What I suggested is we should decide how the taxes we pay are allocated. Meaning that let's say it was calculated that your tax bill was $10000. You should have a say in what programs the $10000 goes to fund.

Society is necessarily made up of winners and losers. We can, as a group, decide how low we want our losers to be. Low status, or just scraping for their very lives ?

I don't follow what you mean by this, and how it relates to the topic we are discussing.

[Riverwind]

Also, I never suggested taht we should decide how much tax we pay. What I suggested is we should decide how the taxes we pay are allocated. Meaning that let's say it was calculated that your tax bill was $10000. You should have a say in what programs the $10000 goes to fund.

You cannot run a $200 billion/year enterprise based on the premise that funding can get jerked around every year based on the latest fad. People are only qualified to set course grained priorities which they can do by choosing a party to vote for. After that it should be up to the people who have all the information and the expertise to understand the information to decide exactly how much funding goes to what programs - in may cases these people are the chief bucreaucrats - not the politicians. Furthermore, you distort the prinicipal of democracy with the system because people who pay for taxes get more say in what the money is spent on.

[Renegade]

You cannot run a $200 billion/year enterprise based on the premise that funding can get jerked around every year based on the latest fad. People are only qualified to set course grained priorities which they can do by choosing a party to vote for. After that it should be up to the people who have all the information and the expertise to understand the information to decide exactly how much funding goes to what programs - in may cases these people are the chief bucreaucrats - not the politicians.

I disagree. The "latest fad" as you put it is the people's will. Part of the reason we have not seen funding for areas which people want, is because politicians think they know better. I've seen their spending choices. These are the same chief bureaucrats which ran up huge debts in the 70s and 80s. I'll take my chances with the people.

Furthermore, you distort the prinicipal of democracy with the system because people who pay for taxes get more say in what the money is spent on.

In my view this does not distort democracy at all. The people who pay should get more say in what the money is spent on.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't follow what you mean by this, and how it relates to the topic we are discussing.

Sorry, Rene... it wasn't meant for you but for others in this thread who commented.

[fellowtraveller]

The only mandatory role of government is to ensure the security of citizens, both internally and from external forces. Without rule of law, none of the rest matters.

[Riverwind]

Part of the reason we have not seen funding for areas which people want, is because politicians think they know better. I've seen their spending choices.

Almost all spending that politicians engage in reflects the people's will. The fact that you might not agree with some of the decisions is not relevant. The spending in the 70s and 80s was entirely the fault of an electorate who elected parties willing to do that. When Joe Clark tried to change the trend he was booted out of office by the electorate.

In my view this does not distort democracy at all. The people who pay should get more say in what the money is spent on.

Why? People who are rich are only rich because the rest of society lets them be rich. Democracy where everyone person has an equal voice is an essential part of the social contract that keeps society stable. Without it people without wealth would be tempted to simply take what they wanted from people who have it.

[Renegade]

Almost all spending that politicians engage in reflects the people's will. The fact that you might not agree with some of the decisions is not relevant. The spending in the 70s and 80s was entirely the fault of an electorate who elected parties willing to do that. When Joe Clark tried to change the trend he was booted out of office by the electorate.

I certainly don't see them reflecting my spending priorities. I suspect a large part of the population feels the same. I don't see that we've really given the taxpaying population input outside of the election process. If they did, my guess many programs which certain polititians favoured would fall by the wayside (eg official bilinguilism).

Why? People who are rich are only rich because the rest of society lets them be rich. Democracy where everyone person has an equal voice is an essential part of the social contract that keeps society stable. Without it people without wealth would be tempted to simply take what they wanted from people who have it.

Well that's where we disagree in perspective. You believe that the rich are rich because society has given them the riches, I believe they have earned it themselves. For the most part what Society has done is demand a cut in return for not forcibly extacting more. I don't think that democracy demands that all people have an equal voice in everything and there are many examples in our society of unequal voices.

People can have an equal voices in one area (eg social policy such as the legality of abortion) however can have an unequal voices in other (eg spending priorities as above).

[Riverwind]

Well that's where we disagree in perspective. You believe that the rich are rich because society has given them the riches, I believe they have earned it themselves.

I believe many rich people (but not all) earned the money that they have, however, it is impossible for someone to be rich without a society that supports them in their endevours. In other words, all rich people have an obligation to society that made their wealth possible. Any wealthy person who thinks they have no obligation to society does not deserve the wealth they have.

To be clear, I don't have any problem with wealth inequality in society provided society ensures equality of opportunity to all members of society. The need to ensure equality of opportunity is how I judge the worth of all government spending.

[August1991]

So much nonsense, so little time.

Do you think the people flipping burgers at McDonald's are qualified to decide what percentage of revenue the company should spend on french fries?

Thay are perfectly qualified to decide what percentage of their revenue should be spent on french fries, and that's all they need decide. In an ideal world, the cumulative of their honest decisions would amount to the government's french fry budget.

People who are rich are only rich because the rest of society lets them be rich.

WTF? Did Bill Gates get permission before becoming wealthy?

You can become rich through theft or inheritance. But most people become rich by creating it. (I have always liked the peculiarly English expression "to make money"; BTW, it is an anglicism in French.)

Almost all spending that politicians engage in reflects the people's will.

What Grade 10 Civics textbook did you get that phrase from? Riverwind, I fear you will have to spend the next 20 years of your life unlearning all the nonsense your high school history teachers taught you.

Given the complaints I've seen on this board about the poor choices voters make, I'm surprised that we would trust voters to prioritize our tax dollars this way.

The same voters seem to make fairly good choices in the grocery store.

My most important things to society:

- Food to keep you from starving to death

- Water that isn't too toxic and contaminated to drink

- Freedom from oppressive governments

- Law and order (which we agree with)

Once you have these, the State has no further obligation to you.

Now that's a strange view of the State. It should provide us essential items only. (Frankly, I'm not sure I'd trust the State for anything essential.)

----

A large percentage of the people in society are basically selfish and don't give a damn about anyone but themselves. They would love such as system because it would mean they would have to contribute nothing.

Riverwind, you have touched on the critical point that means you are both right, and fundamentally wrong.

Underneath your arguments Riverview, there is an assumption that selfish (greedy) people don't like government and don't want to pay taxes. We must appeal to their better angels, and sometimes use force, to get them to be civilized. [As an aside, I think this idea leads to the notion that Leftists are generous and Rightists are selfish... ]

I don't think the problem is selfishness or greed as such. It's dishonesty. If we could get selfish people to tell the truth, they would pay taxes and government would still exist to do many of the things it currently does. Unfortunately, when it comes to government, we have no mechanism (yet) to get people to tell the truth.

For the moment, we have found that the best solution is to name a dictator, hem the person in with many constraints including the threat, every few years, of losing dictator-status. The dictator has the right to take money from us in whatever manner seems appropriate and spend it however it seems appropriate. We call this democracy.

Imagine, for a second, if Stephen Harper did all your grocery shopping for you, and for me and for everyone else. That's government.

Why do put up with it? Because nobody has figured out a way to get us to reveal honestly our feelings about the kinds of things governments can provide and we want. We figure that 57 litres of o.j. delivered one week and then none the next week is better than not getting any o.j. at all, ever.

----

The idea that income tax checkoffs will overcome this dishonesty problem strikes me as unbelievably naive. (Check this out.) In the US however, bond offerings to finance specific public works are often decided by ballot initiative.

I suspect that our representative democracy model is just as good (or bad) as theirs.

[Riverwind]

Thay are perfectly qualified to decide what percentage of their revenue should be spent on french fries, and that's all they need decide. In an ideal world, the cumulative of their honest decisions would amount to the government's french fry budget.

And what if the 'collective' wisdom decided that 50% of the budget should be spent on french frys? So much so that french fries are left rotting in the garbage bins because there are too many for people to consume. Or the reverse, lets say the 'collective wisdom' decides that health funding should only be a small fraction of the budget. The gov't duely slashes spending by disposing of critical assets and laying off staff - incurring billions of dollars of restructuring costs in the process. Once the public discovers the implications of their collective wisdom they reverse their decision causing billions of dollars to be dumped back into the system that was just cut.

Such as system would be incredibly inefficient and subject to the whims of fads and flavours of the month. You cannot run a government like that.

WTF? Did Bill Gates get permission before becoming wealthy?

Bill Gates lives in a society which agreed to treat copying of software as theft. Bill Gates would have nothing today if society did not agree to protect his property rights.

I don't think the problem is selfishness or greed as such. It's dishonesty. If we could get selfish people to tell the truth, they would pay taxes and government would still exist to do many of the things it currently does. Unfortunately, when it comes to government, we have no mechanism (yet) to get people to tell the truth.

I really don't understand what dishonesty has anything to do with it. Are you suggesting that people would contribute due to social pressure if everyone knew how much money they make? Social pressure is just as cohersive as law and in most cases much more arbitrary and selective.

[August1991]

Such as system would be incredibly inefficient and subject to the whims of fads and flavours of the mouth. You cannot run a government like that.

It seems odd that you say that when that is precisely how our society organizes the production and distribution of orange juice.

Bill Gates lives in a society which agreed to treat copying of software as theft. Bill Gates would have nothing today if society did not agree to protect his property rights.

And we would not have Bill's software either if we didn't agree to protect property his rights - because he never would have organized Microsoft in the first place. Riverview, you really are on a zero-sum jag.

When we create and protect property rights, it is not a form of theft. It is to permit creation.

I really don't understand what dishonesty has anything to do with it. Are you suggesting that people would contribute due to social pressure if everyone knew how much money they make? Social pressure is just as cohersive as law and in most cases much more arbitrary and selective.

People want certain goods and services but we have no way of knowing how much they honestly want them.

Imagine a world where grocery stores existed but there was no money, no prices and no property rights. You'd like to have orange juice and you'd be willing to pay for it - but you have no money to do that and the store has no way of charging you a price. Your claim to the o.j. is as good as anyone else's.

Modern government operates in such an environment, and so it should be no surprise that government is a mess.

At the start of this thread, I was (whimsically but also seriously) suggesting that someone sometime in the future is going to solve this problem for governments. I don't think social coercion will have anything to do with the solution, any more than social coercion has anything to do with grocery shopping in modern times.

When the person figures out the solution, many of our political problems will disappear too.

[Riverwind]

It seems odd that you say that when that is precisely how our society organizes the production and distribution of orange juice.

The feedback mechanisms that are at work in distribution of orange juice are infinately more effective than a yearly survery of taxpayers. If orange juice demand goes up the orange juice suppliers are able to immediately able to increase production to meet demand. They don't have to wait 12 months to get approval to spend the extra money. The converse is also true if demand for orange juice goes down.

And we would not have Bill's software either if we didn't agree to protect property his rights - because he never would have organized Microsoft in the first place.

Agreed. But there is a symbiotic relationship. Just because society benefits from the innovation stimulated by intellectual property rights does not mean that Gates owes nothing to the society that made his personal wealth possible.

[Michael Hardner]

Auguste1991 -

The same voters seem to make fairly good choices in the grocery store.

Some differences:

The grocery store already has a lot of the worst options eliminated for you. You can't buy uninspected items, for example. You can't buy alcohol. I believe as well that certain types of food are not allowed to be sold because they're unhealthy.

Also, items have to be labelled so you know what is in them (fat, sugar content etc.). I don't know if I could say what would happen if everyone voted for 0% social programs.

And all of this operates on a legislative foundation that makes sure that everything runs well: food inspection, truth in advertising laws, and anti-monopoly laws.

That being said, people still make bad choices. There's too much sugar and fat in the Canadian diet and too much processed food. Too many french fries.

So the choices available at the grocery store represent a narrower range of options than you would have if you allowed people to allocated budget dollars on their ballot. And as I said people still make bad choices.

...

As Riverwind has pointed out, these regulations recognize the symbiosis between producers and consumers.

Global economics also require controls and regulation. If you've worked for a large American company recently, you probably have heard of Sarbanes-Oxley, which was developed in the wake of the Enron scandal. This was developed under a strong Republican administration because they recognized that the public will not stand to see common people trounced by a system of unregulated capitalism.

So you can't use the same paradigms for a small business person as a global corporation anymore.

It's true that the creation of the notion of private property was instrumental in making Europe an economic force that lasts until today. But there have also been controls on private wealth and behavior, institutionalized and cultural.

There used to be a notion of 'noblesse oblige', which evaporated when governments started taxing wealthy individuals in order to create systems for the public welfare. Over the past thirty years, the wealthy have come to see access to billions of consumers as a natural right and though they have greatly profitted from the new order.

We create a system whereby Bill Gates can profit, and so do the rest of us. If we taxed Bill Gates at 90% (As would have happened under Eisenhower) then maybe he wouldn't take the risks required to create innovation. If we taxed him at 0%, then the government wouldn't get the revenues required to maintain the public infrastructure.

[Riverwind]

There used to be a notion of 'noblesse oblige', which evaporated when governments started taxing wealthy individuals in order to create systems for the public welfare. Over the past thirty years, the wealthy have come to see access to billions of consumers as a natural right and though they have greatly profitted from the new order.

To be fair, this obession with 'rights' without any consideration for obligations happens among left wing activists as well. Look at the people in the France who seem to believe that a company owe them a job for life.

[Michael Hardner]

To be fair, this obession with 'rights' without any consideration for obligations happens among left wing activists as well. Look at the people in the France who seem to believe that a company owe them a job for life.

The French have an entreched belief that the common person's standard of living should always improve. It's not practical, but you can see a sort of logic in it. At a certain point, the price of labour in such a country becomes too expensive.

[August1991]

The feedback mechanisms that are at work in distribution of orange juice are infinately more effective than a yearly survery of taxpayers.

I can't really disagree with you, althouh I cringe at the term "feedback mechanism". IMV, the critical feature is that we have a way of conveying credible information. People honestly reveal their feelings when they choose to buy orange juice at the price posted, and sellers honestly reveal their feelings when they post the price.

It is too often ignored that this truth-telling mechanism is a recent invention; we have only had it for several thousand years. Prior to that, all human relations were messily conducted in the dark with all the subterfuge and confusion that implies - just as government relations are conducted now.

If someone several thousand years ago could invent prices, I figure that someone in the future will devise a mechanism to elicit honesty in collective choices.

And we would not have Bill's software either if we didn't agree to protect property his rights - because he never would have organized Microsoft in the first place.

Agreed. But there is a symbiotic relationship. Just because society benefits from the innovation stimulated by intellectual property rights does not mean that Gates owes nothing to the society that made his personal wealth possible.

Symbiotic is a curious word. One species often has a symbiotic relation with another, and sometimes it's even mutually symbiotic - bees and flowers, for example, or certain mouth bacteria.

Property rights give rise to an accurate level of "mutual symbiotism" - not too many flowers, not too many bees.

But your comment raises a more important issue: Does Bill Gates owe this society for the chance it gave him to be so wealthy? Good question. I dunno.

Sometimes I figure God must exist and our souls must be immortal because otherwise, the likes of Mozart and Newton will never get the chance to know the true value of what they created.