Hacker News Reader

Comment by noahth | Hacker News Reader

You may not like the idea but that doesn't necessarily have any bearing on its truth. None of us does anything on our own - water, power, roads, schools, the list goes on and on (not all directly attributable to the country itself, but certainly national governments are high on the list of contributors to these projects in almost all cases, and I haven't even mentioned things like tax policy yet). I think the days of the nation-state are numbered but we can't ignore what those entities did for human progress. Maybe not in the form of a literal debt, but it's short-sighted and antisocial to pretend that the elites didn't have a hundred million helping hands on their way up.

View on HN

Perhaps, but the elites have already paid for all of those helping hands many times over. The top 5% paid about 60% of the nation's taxes, for instance, and they almost certainly have not used 60% of the public services.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

In spite of this, most of the services they paid for are not the public goods (e.g., roads, power, water, police) you describe. Of the top 5 biggest expenditures in the US, only the 4'th is a public good.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2008_US.html

And this completely ignores all the consumer surplus they have created (i.e., the happiness you get from using a macbook rather than having $1000). The elites have paid their debt. Let them leave if they want to.

The US should not become a prison state.

This debt metaphor is really unproductive. Fact is it's easier to make money when you already have money. So the assumption here is a nation would be better off if it subsidized the money making process, same as it subsidizes education.

and they almost certainly have not used 60% of the public services.

They've probably used more than 60%. Almost all of the money is a means to keep poor people "content" in this country. It's a small price that rich people pay. To put it another way, rich people could certainly cut off pretty much all education, pension, health care expenditures if they wanted to. But there's a reason they don't, and its not because they're nice people. But its in their best interest. It's their public good.

I think the point is that the elite benefit from the public services even if we do not use them directly. E.g. if we work in an office building we benefit from the services that allowed the worker vacuuming to be there, though we didn't necessarily take the bus there ourselves. [edit] but this is not to say that anyone should be restricted unduly.

First of all, if the worker is a taxpayer, the employer is already paying for those services in the form of pre-tax wages. I pay for my own police protection, and I raise my wage commensurately [1]. This is all included in the cost of labor.

Secondly, most government spending does not provide those necessary services. Roads, police and water are just not very expensive. Most government spending is just transfers from the wealthy to the less wealthy - see my second link in my previous post.

[1] Actually, my landlord pays for police protection, and has raised my rent commensurately.

Most of the cleaning service people are not really taxpayers[1], which is why including them distorts the equation. They are benefiting w/out contributing, and we do in fact, need them. Also reinforcing my point, How can you claim that Defense is the only public good in the top 5? What percentage of the population must benefit to qualify?

[1]From other IRS data, we can see that in 2008, around 52 million tax returns were filed with either positive or negative AGI that used exemptions, deductions and tax credits to completely wipe out their federal income tax liability. Not only did they get back every dollar that the federal government withheld from their paychecks during 2008, but some even received more back from the IRS.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com