5 ms·

True, but what solves the forced rider problem and why presume that it is more benign a problem than free riding? One man's public good is another man's public

True, but what solves the forced rider problem and why presume that it is more benign a problem than free riding? One man's public good is another man's public bad.

wpietri 15y ago
There's no a priori answer: democracy is how we decide. But one way to check how we're doing is by comparison with other countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenu... The US's tax burden is already the lowest of the OECD countries bar Chile and Mexico. It's 30% lower than Great Britain, and half that of Denmark. And what that hides is we spend an extraordinarily large portion of that on "defense", so in terms of money spent on citizens, we're necessarily lower. But if that's still too much governmental interference, then tax haters are able to select from a wide variety of third-world countries. I might suggest Somalia, where effective tax burden is zero. There being no effective government at all, of course.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- JVirissimo 15y ago
  "There's no a priori answer: democracy is how we decide." Yes, but simply because the majority votes to take a certain action does not make that action utility-maximizing (the losers might lose more than the gainers gain). Of course, even if it is utility-maximizing (which is probably unmeasurable anyway), many would still object even if they were among the winners because it violates some rule of justice, is unfair, or other similar thing. I'm not so much sticking up for the people getting less utility from "public goods" than they would from a private good that is a close substitute, but for the people that get disutility from "public goods" even if they cost them nothing. I'm sure I'm not the only bleeding-heart civil libertarian that would pay good money in order not to receive such "public goods" as killing foreigners for living in a country whose government we disagree with, locking up peaceful individuals for ingesting illegal substances, or subsidizing behavior we find abhorrent. "But if that's still too much governmental interference, then tax haters are able to select from a wide variety of third-world countries. I might suggest Somalia, where effective tax burden is zero. There being no effective government at all, of course." This counter-argument proves too much. Couldn't someone denying your preferred tax policy suggest that you (or Buffet) move to a country with higher tax rates rather than they having to move to a lower tax country? I find the "if you don't like it, then leave" argument less than persuasive.

True, but what solves the forced rider problem and why presume that it is more benign a problem than free riding? One man's public good is another man's public bad.

wpietri 15y ago

There's no a priori answer: democracy is how we decide. But one way to check how we're doing is by comparison with other countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenu... The US's tax burden is already the lowest of the OECD countries bar Chile and Mexico. It's 30% lower than Great Britain, and half that of Denmark. And what that hides is we spend an extraordinarily large portion of that on "defense", so in terms of money spent on citizens, we're necessarily lower. But if that's still too much governmental interference, then tax haters are able to select from a wide variety of third-world countries. I might suggest Somalia, where effective tax burden is zero. There being no effective government at all, of course.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
JVirissimo 15y ago
"There's no a priori answer: democracy is how we decide." Yes, but simply because the majority votes to take a certain action does not make that action utility-maximizing (the losers might lose more than the gainers gain). Of course, even if it is utility-maximizing (which is probably unmeasurable anyway), many would still object even if they were among the winners because it violates some rule of justice, is unfair, or other similar thing. I'm not so much sticking up for the people getting less utility from "public goods" than they would from a private good that is a close substitute, but for the people that get disutility from "public goods" even if they cost them nothing. I'm sure I'm not the only bleeding-heart civil libertarian that would pay good money in order not to receive such "public goods" as killing foreigners for living in a country whose government we disagree with, locking up peaceful individuals for ingesting illegal substances, or subsidizing behavior we find abhorrent. "But if that's still too much governmental interference, then tax haters are able to select from a wide variety of third-world countries. I might suggest Somalia, where effective tax burden is zero. There being no effective government at all, of course." This counter-argument proves too much. Couldn't someone denying your preferred tax policy suggest that you (or Buffet) move to a country with higher tax rates rather than they having to move to a lower tax country? I find the "if you don't like it, then leave" argument less than persuasive.