No idea if "econo-political" is a word, but I don't particularly care simply because I'm not going to use it much here and I'm confident the reader (you) will understand my meaning. Now, with that said, this obviously will be a post concerning politics, so if you don't want to read it, don't. It isn't like I'll know. As it is I don't think anybody actually reads this blog, so, at best, this post is as a note to myself. In case this is read though, please understand two things: I'm not attached to this idea and my opinion may change in the future; and I'm not saying this to provoke anything but critical thought. I will also present, at the end, my own views and thoughts on the matter at hand. If any of this upsets you, deal with it. I deal with it when someone else says something that upsets me, so afford me the same courtesy.
So, right now we have in the US government a 'fight' over what to do concerning the emanate expiration of tax cuts and spending cuts. Don't need to say more than that really because if you care, you already know enough, and if you don't care, well, you don't care. That's just the backdrop for my idea coming to me.
The fight itself appears to be due to the conservative principle that lower taxes and smaller government is better, versus the liberal principle that higher taxes (specifically on the wealthiest people) and larger government is better. Where do these principles come from exactly? Well, that's where my idea comes in, and while I'm sure it fails as an explanation in one way or another, it may still be worth mentioning.
Economies are all based on transferring something, whether it be a product, service, or something else, it is always going from one to another, and typically it is a two-way transaction. (You give money to receive product/service.) What is the direction of these flows? That is actually a really simple question to answer. Products and services move from those that have/offer the products and services to those who do not (but have the money to purchase or otherwise barter). Fairly obvious, isn't it. Now here's my idea.
The liberal assertion is that the entity that 'haves' should be the government while the conservative assertion is that the entity that 'haves' should be the individual. This is plainly reflected by the liberal push to raise taxes on the wealthiest individuals (thereby increasing the government funds for providing products and services) while the conservatives push for maintaining current tax levels on the wealthiest (thereby increasing the individuals' funds for providing products and services).
Assuming this idea is true, and keeping the considerations at this simplistic level, I have to agree with the conservative ideal and this is why. The government almost exclusively acquires funds through taxes while the individual can only acquire funds through transactions. In a transaction, you too receive something specific (the product or service) and desired (you don't buy what you don't want). Taxes do not give you anything specific and there are no assurances that your taxes only pay for what you want. You have no ability to deny your taxes to one government purpose so it may go to another (though that would be an interesting check on the government by the people). Your taxes also do not go to anything specific, but to the entire government for it to spend as it wishes. There is but one 'pocket,' if you will, that funds the government. If you refuse to put money into that pocket, you may then be incarcerated. This is why I agree with the conservative economic principle I describe above. A government may compel you, with prison as a punishment for refusal, to fund products and/or services you do not want to fund, while an individual cannot force you into any transaction with itself, and what transactions you do undertake with an individual are only those you desire.
Of course the current economic situation is far more complicated than this post could ever contain. Further there are sources of government revenue beyond taxes, such as fees at the patent office and stamps at the post office. (However, it is worth noting that Congress has actually been skimming money from the patent office's profits to pay for other things. Not sure if something similar has been happening to the post office, but it wouldn't surprise me.) Also there is competition between individuals for better prices and quality, which is again too complicated for me to cover in this post, beyond acknowledging the consumer's ability to 'shop around.' Further, when you do perform a transaction with an individual or company, you know where what your end of the transaction is. Let's say it is a private retirement account at a local bank. You know that money is going to stay in the community, either as a loan or as an investment which enables interest to grow on your and other accounts. Where does money for Social Security go? (Actually since they put it on budget, it goes to where ever the government wants the money to go, and not necessarily into Social Security.)
Why would people believe the liberal ideal is superior? Of course I can only speculate, but here are my speculations. There is the idea that you have a greater influence in government than in companies. Therefore, if the government does something you do not like, you can do something to change it. Also the government existing as the only source of products and services is a simplistic idea, and people tend to like simple things.
Some may also want to suggest that the government is fairer and more compassionate than an individual. Is it fair or compassionate to compel people to do something they object to?
Those are the best speculations I can come up with for why one would believe in the liberal ideal I've described above; that the government should be the source of all products and services. Of course, as I do not believe in that ideal, my attempt at explaining this belief is going to be inadequate.
As a final note though, I would like to suggest you think about something, regardless of if you agree with anything I have stated above. Would you like the ability to control what your tax revenue goes to (the amount you pay is the same, just the destination of your taxes may change)? If that were the case, what would you not want to fund and what would you want to fund? Everyone has to admit it would be interesting to know what services and products from the government would be funded by popular choice.
No comments:
Post a Comment