Opinion How much responsibility does a government have to generate money other than taxes?

[Leagon]

In America, there's always discussion surrounding income taxes, and there's an implicit assumption that anything that costs money requires tax money to fund. Even Republicans, who favor keeping individual income, seem to just accept that things must be paid for via tax money.

But this is a strange assumption. There are several countries that have no taxes at all and many countries with very low tax rates.

https://flagtheory.com/tax-free-countries/

Obviously these countries are much smaller and have different financial burdens, but it raises the question of how much responsibility a government has to find ways to make money other than depending on the income of its citizens.

As I've said before on this board, I have no background in economics, so this may be simpler or more complicated than how I'm presenting it. But why is there no expectation that our government should be able to maintain the country without our 3+ trillion tax dollars?

With the high immigrant population the US has, would it be unreasonable to have slightly steeper taxes on non-residents (especially megarich ones) than on permanent residents and citizens?

 

[Higus]

With the high immigrant population the US has, would it be unreasonable to have slightly steeper taxes on non-residents (especially megarich ones) than on permanent residents and citizens?

I'm just going to skip to this point.
States with high levels of tourism basically do this. Florida is an example that gets large portions of it's tax revenue from tourist taxes, offsetting the burden from the residents. A lot of the nations in the link are Caribbean based and follow similar models. Obviously that isn't going to be viable for most states.

 

[zebby23]

When you are constantly operating from a deficit I would say American taxpayers are doing our part and the government certainly isn’t.

Gubment should get into the drug dealing business starting with marijuana.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

what's insane is our often higher expenditures in certain fields, despite not having socialized programs in those fields....

It's absurd, really

 

[Greoric]

what's insane is our often higher expenditures in certain fields, despite not having socialized programs in those fields....

It's absurd, really

The MIC is the leviathan you speak of.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

The MIC is the leviathan you speak of.

it is, that and HC and if we're being honest Internet Service

 

[Quipling]

I've always wondered a bit about this myself. As in, a hundred years ago there were no taxes at all correct? Then they were very minimal, and then they exploded. So how did everything even function before the tax level that we endure today? I understand how things are now, but not how they used to function without issues if there was no taxing going on. If anyone has a good read on this I'd like to check it out.

There were definitely taxes 100+ years ago. They were differently structured, though. Income tax is relatively new. Property taxes, import taxes (tariffs), permits, tolls, etc aren't new.

 

[Chesten_Hesten]

In America, there's always discussion surrounding income taxes, and there's an implicit assumption that anything that costs money requires tax money to fund. Even Republicans, who favor keeping individual income, seem to just accept that things must be paid for via tax money.

But this is a strange assumption. There are several countries that have no taxes at all and many countries with very low tax rates.

https://flagtheory.com/tax-free-countries/

Obviously these countries are much smaller and have different financial burdens, but it raises the question of how much responsibility a government has to find ways to make money other than depending on the income of its citizens.

As I've said before on this board, I have no background in economics, so this may be simpler or more complicated than how I'm presenting it. But why is there no expectation that our government should be able to maintain the country without our 3+ trillion tax dollars?

With the high immigrant population the US has, would it be unreasonable to have slightly steeper taxes on non-residents (especially megarich ones) than on permanent residents and citizens?

Many Countries Nationalize the Energy Sector. The US is the only Country left I believe where an individual still has mineral rights to property they own.

The Communist party, (gov't) in China is probably the biggest capitalist monopoly on the planet.

I think I'd rather have taxes than give the rule-makers cart blanche to take over all markets and proceeds.

Could come to fruition I suppose.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I've always wondered a bit about this myself. As in, a hundred years ago there were no taxes at all correct? Then they were very minimal, and then they exploded. So how did everything even function before the tax level that we endure today? I understand how things are now, but not how they used to function without issues if there was no taxing going on. If anyone has a good read on this I'd like to check it out.

The 16th Amendment passed a little more than 100 years ago but there were periodic income taxes before that, with some controversy about whether they were Constitutional. The gov't also owned a lot of land (socialism!) and would sell to get money, plus there were tariffs, excise taxes, custom duties, and a few things like that. Also remember that most Americans were basically cavemen back then. If you go back to 1870 (when things started to turn around), a lot of Americans farmed and had pigs, and women made their own clothes (men would usually have an outfit that they purchased and would wear every day for months, or if they were a little better off than normal, they'd also have a "nice" outfit for Church and other occasions). There just wasn't much money being used at all. The nearest store for most would be a long, difficult trip away that they would make infrequently, and it wouldn't be anything like current stores--things would be purchased on credit with different prices that were always negotiated at the time. The "economy" didn't really run on money.

 

[Greoric]

it is, that and HC and if we're being honest Internet Service

Yeah HC prices are absolutely absurd.... but Internet service? WTF?

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Yeah HC prices are absolutely absurd.... but Internet service? WTF?

many other countries have socialized/subsidized internet (from what I recall)

which actually makes sense why we don't, since it was developed here and they just piggybacked off ours. Kinda like Pharmaceuticals from other countries that make generics off our namebrands, and thus don't incur the R&D costs

 

[panamaican]

There were definitely taxes 100+ years ago. They were differently structured, though. Income tax is relatively new. Property taxes, import taxes (tariffs), permits, tolls, etc aren't new.

The other option is state run industries competing in the marketplace. We see this in plenty of socialist-style countries where they monetize the natural resources to fund the government.

 

[Seaside]

Many countries have nationalized energy sector or even some state run companies. The billions and hundreds of billions from that is money the government gets.

Most Americans though are brainwashed to worship the military industrial complex and being raped by an oligarchy class and giant corporations. Unregulated capitalism and tens of billions in profits off the peoples land and resources going to a few wealthy people and overseas.
Boom!

 

[Leagon]

I'm just going to skip to this point.
States with high levels of tourism basically do this. Florida is an example that gets large portions of it's tax revenue from tourist taxes, offsetting the burden from the residents. A lot of the nations in the link are Caribbean based and follow similar models. Obviously that isn't going to be viable for most states.

What about on a federal level?

 

[Leagon]

Many Countries Nationalize the Energy Sector. The US is the only Country left I believe where an individual still has mineral rights to property they own.

The Communist party, (gov't) in China is probably the biggest capitalist monopoly on the planet.

I think I'd rather have taxes than give the rule-makers cart blanche to take over all markets and proceeds.

Could come to fruition I suppose.

Thanks for the post.

The more I think about it, though, the less sense it makes to me that the government doesn't control certain sectors. The trade off is that it gives private citizens the opportunity to make money in those sectors, but...is that really necessary? China still has plenty of billionaires. I think most Americans would rather our government make money off of energy if it meant they got to keep more of their wages.

 

[Leagon]

Some great responses in this thread, guys. I'm learning a lot!

 

[Leagon]

many other countries have socialized/subsidized internet (from what I recall)

which actually makes sense why we don't, since it was developed here and they just piggybacked off ours. Kinda like Pharmaceuticals from other countries that make generics off our namebrands, and thus don't incur the R&D costs

But the internet was a government project. Presumably, we already paid for it with tax dollars. If the idea is that we're paying R&D costs, we must've already repaid that debt a millionfold.

 

[Chesten_Hesten]

Thanks for the post.

The more I think about it, though, the less sense it makes to me that the government doesn't control certain sectors. The trade off is that it gives private citizens the opportunity to make money in those sectors, but...is that really necessary? China still has plenty of billionaires. I think most Americans would rather our government make money off of energy if it meant they got to keep more of their wages.

Maybe.

Private citizens tend to innovate quicker than Gov't bureaucracy.
Chinese Millionaires and billionaires are all Communist party members, (hail hydra) Plus I believe their economy is super dependent on foreign consumerism.
I think most of the worst cases of chrony capitalism come when the Gov't starts taking sides. Allow them to own industry and its just ripe for the type of monopoly that isn't good. My opinion for what's it worth.

 

[BangersAndSmash]

But the internet was a government project. Presumably, we already paid for it with tax dollars. If the idea is that we're paying R&D costs, we must've already repaid that debt a millionfold.

For internet, the government allows private companies to install the infrastructure for a given area and maintain a monopoly or near monopoly on providing internet service for that area.

It'd be like letting the construction companies own the roads after they finished making them.

For reference, Chatanooga TN got tired of waiting around for internet providers to sign up and build the infrastructure, so they did it themselves. Their rates are cheaper, their service is solid, and they offer a 1 GB/ 1 GB connection (10x faster than 100MB/ 100MB which is generally considered fast by other providers) for only like 30$ more than a competitor would charge for 100MB / 100 MB.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/04/...eeds-business-development-in-chattanooga.html

 

[Higus]

What about on a federal level?

The US isn't really set up to work like that because it's broken up into states. The tax revenue that doesn't come from citizens either comes from tourism, oil, mining, or some other natural resource unique to the state.