Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[hrothgar]

If I as a parent wish to spend my excess disposable income to enhance the quality of my child's education, should I be permitted to do so? And if so, then my child would receive a better education than that provided by the state, and would violate your condition above. The other children would not be entitled to an equal level of education that I provide my child.

 

Now, if you asserting that the level of education provided by the state should be equal for all children, then the political reality is that that level would be a minimum. That would be so because politically aware parents would want to preserve as much money/resources as possible to giver their own children an advantage. I know I certainly would.

 

Also there are some other difficulties in providing an equal level of education to all children. How can we assure that the quality of teaching is the same? That external factors are the same (blizzards shutting down schools, etc.)?

 

Comment 1: I suspect that Zelandakh miss spoke and intended to state that all children should be provided with the opportunity to achieve some minimum level of education.

 

Comment 2: I don't have any objection to parents using excess disposable income to educate their children. Indeed, I consider it a laudable goal. With this said and done, I don't consider your desirable to provide an advantage to your children to be a valid excuse to avoid paying taxes

 

Comment 3: Education is a "public good", by which I mean that not all of the benefits from education are captured by the individual spending the money. Society as a whole captures a wide variety of benefits from having an educated population. As such, private individuals tend to under invest in education and a rational society will chose to taxes its members as to achieve a better societal outcome.

 

Comment 4: You took advantage of the education that the US provided to you, then chose to run of to Mexico to avoid contributing back to the society that lent you a hand. Your choice. I think that we as a country are better off with out you. Just wish that your shut the ***** up rather than lecturing us about what a greedy bastard you are...

[ldrews]

Comment 2: I don't have any objection to parents using excess disposable income to educate their children. Indeed, I consider it a laudable goal. With this said and done, I don't consider your desirable to provide an advantage to your children to be a valid excuse to avoid paying taxes

 

Comment 3: Education is a "public good", by which I mean that not all of the benefits from education are captured by the individual spending the money. Society as a whole captures a wide variety of benefits from having an educated population. As such, private individuals tend to under invest in education and a rational society will chose to taxes its members as to achieve a better societal outcome.

 

Comment 4: You took advantage of the education that the US provided to you, then chose to run of to Mexico to avoid contributing back to the society that lent you a hand. Your choice. I think that we as a country are better off with out you. Just wish that your shut the ***** up rather than lecturing us about what a greedy bastard you are...

 

You seem to have a problem with someone who does not march the way you think they should march. Is this a common occurrence for you?

 

Comment 2: I don't need a valid excuse to avoid paying taxes. As Supreme Court Justice Learned Hand said: "Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as

possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the

treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes.

Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister

in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone

does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any

public duty to pay more than the law demands."

 

Comment 3: Education is not legally a "public good". No more than "jobs" are a public good, even though the public benefits from people having jobs. I am not a pawn, servant, or slave of the public. If you wish to volunteer for such positions, be my guest.

 

Comment 4: Fortunately my vote counts the same as yours. What you call greed I call enlightened self-interest. The same self-interest that motivated millions of people to settle the US, build businesses, and feed their families. Apparently you do not have the same appreciation of those efforts that I do.

 

I worked for 60 years in the US building the ancestors of the very software you are probably using today. Often 60-80 hours/week. I think I have paid my dues. How about you? Have you contributed anything to society besides an arrogant attitude?

[hrothgar]

 

 

Comment 2: I don't need a valid excuse to avoid paying taxes. As Supreme Court Justice Learned Hand said: "Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as

possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the

treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes.

Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister

in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone

does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any

public duty to pay more than the law demands."

 

 

I agree completely. You have a legal right to do whatever you damn well please.

And I have a legal right to think less of you for it...

 

Comment 3: Education is not legally a "public good". No more than "jobs" are a public good, even though the public benefits from people having jobs. I am not a pawn, servant, or slave of the public. If you wish to volunteer for such positions, be my guest.

 

It would be ever so helpful if you knew what basic expressions like "public good" mean. Please let me know when you're actually prepared to discuss this topic.

 

I worked for 60 years in the US building the ancestors of the very software you are probably using today. Often 60-80 hours/week. I think I have paid my dues. How about you? Have you contributed anything to society besides an arrogant attitude?

 

Really not sure what this is supposed to prove...

 

It almost seems as if you think that we should be comparing paycheck size or number of years before we expect to die as a measure of worth...

[ldrews]

From wikipedia:

In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous in that individuals cannot be effectively excluded from use and where use by one individual does not reduce availability to others.[1] Gravelle and Rees: "The defining characteristic of a public good is that consumption of it by one individual does not actually or potentially reduce the amount available to be consumed by another individual." In a non-economic sense, the term is often used to describe something that is useful for the public generally, such as education and infrastructure, although these are not "public goods" in the economic sense. This is in contrast to a common good which is non-excludable but is rivalrous to a certain degree.

 

 

Comment?

[ldrews]

Comment 4: You took advantage of the education that the US provided to you, then chose to run of to Mexico to avoid contributing back to the society that lent you a hand. Your choice. I think that we as a country are better off with out you. Just wish that your shut the ***** up rather than lecturing us about what a greedy bastard you are...

 

Well, first you allege that I took advantage of education provided to me and then avoided contributing back to society. Do you think 60 years of labor in the US qualifies for "contributing back"? Then I ask you for an example of your contribution which you have evaded. So I ask again, what have you contributed back?

 

Second, you engage in character assassination by calling me a "greedy bastard". Your attitude of arrogance and lack of civility shine through, don't you think?

 

But that is ok, continue to evade.

[ldrews]

hrothgar,

 

What you call "greed" I call "self-interest". The rewards/payoff from self-interest come in many forms and many sources, not just financial. Approval of others, self-esteem, feelings of pride, etc., are just some of the payoffs that I think we all strive for. It is my opinion that any activity that one engages in that does not return more benefits, measured over time, than the costs incurred will be discontinued. And if I am willing to look at the longer timeframes and wider environment to assess the payoffs, then it is what I would call "enlightened self-interest".

 

I assert that almost everyone is motivated by such self-interest most, if not all, of the time. There may be a truly altruistic person out there, but I have yet to meet him/her.

 

So, when someone extolls the "public good", I first check my wallet and then look for the payoffs that person is receiving from the "public good". I guess I am just a cynic.

[hrothgar]

From wikipedia:

 

 

Comment?

 

Yeah, here's the thing...

 

One of my graduate degrees is in economics which I studied at schools like MIT and University of Chicago.

And I trust what my professors taught me more than I do random assertions on Wikipedia.

 

I'm not about to dredge my old textbooks out of storage, however, if you like you can look at slide 40 in the following

 

http://www.rajchetty.com/chettyfiles/public_economics_lectures.pdf

[ldrews]

Slide 40:

 

First Welfare Theorem

Private market provides a Pareto e¢ cient outcome under three

conditions

1

No externalities

2

Perfect information

3

Perfect competition

Theorem tells us when the government should intervene

[ldrews]

hrothgar,

 

I have no competency in formal economics so you have me there. But I do kind of like the Austrian School. They say the following:

 

Arguments against

 

There are several arguments against the public goods theory:

 

there is no way of knowing what is the "optimal" amount of the good produced

many other goods can be to some degree considered public with the imprecise definition

the presence of the state changes the incentive structure. Companies may declare their product for a public good to receive taxpayer funding.[2]

many of the 'public goods' are successfully produced in the private sector

the theory does not at all prove that the government should produce these goods

many of the goods government actually does produce do not correspond to the economist's definition of public goods, so the theory poorly explains the government's actual role in the economy[3]

[hrothgar]

Slide 40:

 

First Welfare Theorem

Private market provides a Pareto e¢ cient outcome under three

conditions

1

No externalities

2

Perfect information

3

Perfect competition

Theorem tells us when the government should intervene

 

Sorry, slide 41

 

Markets may be incomplete due to lack of prices (e.g. pollution)

Achieving efficient Coasian solution requires an organization to

coordinate individuals that is, a government

 

This is why govt. funds public goods (highways, education, defense)

[ldrews]

Markets may be incomplete due to lack of prices (e.g. pollution)

Achieving efficient Coasian solution requires an organization to

coordinate individuals that is, a government

 

This is why govt. funds public goods (highways, education, defense)

 

But doesn't an efficient Coasian solution depend upon well defined property rights and zero transaction costs? How does the use of government (a coercive tool) allow for a negotiated arrival of an efficient allocation? And how does this apply to education which can probably be formulated using property rights but has non-zero transaction costs?

[hrothgar]

But doesn't an efficient Coasian solution depend upon well defined property rights and zero transaction costs?

 

The Coasian solution is offered as a reference point, not because anyone believes that it is achievable.

As you note, the Coasian solution does require zero transaction costs.

 

How does the use of government (a coercive tool) allow for a negotiated arrival of an efficient allocation?

 

Through taxation.

 

And how does this apply to education which can probably be formulated using property rights but has non-zero transaction costs?

 

It might not be possible to get to a perfect solution, but one can get closer towards one

[hrothgar]

hrothgar,

 

I have no competency in formal economics so you have me there. But I do kind of like the Austrian School. They say the following:

 

That's nice.

 

The Austrian School are a bunch of cranks who are not taken remotely seriously by mainstream economists.

Don't get me wrong, Hayek and von Mises had some useful things to say, especially about the limitations of central planning. But Austrian School is crazy.

For god's sakes, they favor returning to the Gold Standard....

 

The only place that you find these nutjobs are right wing think tanks and very small number of universities where the Koch brothers have set up welfare programs for the Austrians.

(George Mason being the most obvious example)

[ldrews]

For god's sakes, they favor returning to the Gold Standard....

 

Seems to me that they favor using something as a currency that the government cannot debase. Gold being one obvious choice.

 

So what do you think of cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin?

[ldrews]

Quote

How does the use of government (a coercive tool) allow for a negotiated arrival of an efficient allocation?

 

 

Through taxation.

 

So, if I am a retiree living in a small cabin outside of town, how does the taxes I pay to support education benefit me?

 

And do I have any choice in the matter? Does the government coerce me to pay the taxes to support education whether I agree with their benefit analysis or not?

[hrothgar]

Seems to me that they favor using something as a currency that the government cannot debase. Gold being one obvious choice.

 

So what do you think of cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin?

 

Bitcoin is an interesting idea, however, it suffers from a number of flaws that means that it is (currently) impractical as a currency

 

1. The bitcoin market is much too thin. As such, the value of bitcoins relative to real currencies fluctuates dramatically. Holding bitcoins might be a fun was to speculate. Its not a (currently) a good store of value which is one of the defining characteristics of money. So long as governments are in a position to control people's ability to covert bitcoins into real assets I don't see this changing.

 

2. Many of the properties of bitcoins such as anonymity and being irrevocable turn out to depend on the assumption that bitcoin mining is being done by a large number of independent actors. It turns out that bitcoin mining costs a lot of electricity and almost all of the mining either happens in Iceland (where electricity is dirt cheap) or China (where the govern is providing subsidized electrity to mining consortia). For all practical purposes, the Chinese government is in control of the blockchain and can do whatever they want to it.

 

3. Bitcoins are inherently deflationary which is not considered a good feature in an economy.

[hrothgar]

So, if I am a retiree living in a small cabin outside of town, how does the taxes I pay to support education benefit me?

 

Not the point

 

 

And do I have any choice in the matter?

 

No

 

Does the government coerce me to pay the taxes to support education whether I agree with their benefit analysis or not?

 

Yes

 

At a more meta level, if you decide to live within an organized society you are accepting a social contract and part of that social contract involves ceding certain powers to the government. And living off the grid or "going Galt" is not sufficient to withdraw from said contract.

[ldrews]

At a more meta level, if you decide to live within an organized society you are accepting a social contract and part of that social contract involves ceding certain powers to the government. And living off the grid or "going Galt" is not sufficient to withdraw from said contract.

 

I was born in the US. I am not aware of deciding this. I also do not remember ever consciously accepting a social contract. Perhaps you could provide me a copy of the agreement with my signature?

[hrothgar]

I was born in the US. I am not aware of deciding this. I also do not remember ever consciously accepting a social contract. Perhaps you could provide me a copy of the agreement with my signature?

 

I believe that you will find said signature on your tax forms, your drivers license, your social security card, your passport....

 

Moreover, when you decided to live within the borders of the United States you are tacitly agreeing that you will abide by the laws of said country or face the potential for criminal prosecution.

 

You are welcome to withdraw from said social contract, leave the country, and renounce your citizenship.

But until you do so, you're going to pay what the government thinks that your should and be subject to whatever laws that the government decides.

 

(You are, of course, welcome to try to change said laws)

[ldrews]

Moreover, when you decided to live within the borders of the United States you are tacitly agreeing that you will abide by the laws of said country or face the potential for criminal prosecution.

 

Well, as I said, I was born in the US. I don't think that qualifies as "deciding" to live in the US. But you are right, I have in the past given tacit consent, the same way that I cooperate with a mugger who is waving a gun in my face. Not in the same category as voluntary consent/participation. The same is true regarding abiding by the laws of the country. I am faced with overwhelming force, so I comply to survive. It is sort of like bad weather: I deal with it, tolerate it, but do not necessarily like it or "consent" to it.

 

That is all much different than a voluntary agreement that you and I might make. Here we both find value in an exchange sans force or coercion, or otherwise we would not make the agreement.

 

If the "public good" was indeed recognized as beneficial to the parties by the parties, no governmental participation would be necessary. People have formed voluntary associations for eons to carry out such activities. Introduction of governmental participation immediately makes me suspect that some of the parties involved do not agree or do not want to participate, so those that do want to participate use government to force the recalcitrants to participate. Most likely to spread the cost of the activity over a larger base so that the promoters do not have to bear the full cost themselves.

[hrothgar]

But you are right, I have in the past given tacit consent, the same way that I cooperate with a mugger who is waving a gun in my face. Not in the same category as voluntary consent/participation. The same is true regarding abiding by the laws of the country. I am faced with overwhelming force, so I comply to survive.

 

And this works fine for me...

[hrothgar]

 

If the "public good" was indeed recognized as beneficial to the parties by the parties, no governmental participation would be necessary.

 

It is clear that you don't understand the basics of what what is being discussed.

 

Are you familiar with basic concepts like Prisoner's Dilemma or the Tragedy of the Commons?

[PassedOut]

So, if I am a retiree living in a small cabin outside of town, how does the taxes I pay to support education benefit me?

You collected the benefits in advance.

 

The retirees and folks without children paid taxes to support the schools that you attended as a child. And those older folks attended schools supported by earlier generations too.

[jogs]

You seriously based your vote for one of the most important decisions you will make for a while on a perception of less than 0.5% of the population? And that is without knowing the

.

Every poll has leading questions. That's why most polls got Brexit and the Clinton/Trump election wrong.

 

Thought you were providing a link for this poll on Muslims favoring Sharia Law.

 

So are you lefties willing to defend Sharia Law?

[jogs]

You collected the benefits in advance.

 

The retirees and folks without children paid taxes to support the schools that you attended as a child. And those older folks attended schools supported by earlier generations too.

Actually in San Francisco seniors are exempt from that tax.