Hacker News Reader

Comment by ctdonath | Hacker News Reader

Why the notion that gov't should be the provider & arbiter of all? Why do none of the "they don't pay enough taxes" crowd not realize the rich do so much of, and more efficiently, what the gov't purports to with massive overhead? Job creation, charity, arts funding, lowering costs of necessities, etc - and at levels & locations which gov't would never achieve.

The "tax/soak the rich" notion seems almost entirely punitive, not productive. Yeah Musk has $billions, he's also creating thousands of jobs (direct & indirect), making the expensive affordable, improving environment, etc - and able to because he's very rich. Even the "mean" rich create jobs & markets etc that gov't can't.

View on HN

> Why the notion that gov't should be the provider & arbiter of all?

Because the government is democratically elected. Billionaires are not.

> Why do none of the "they don't pay enough taxes" crowd not realize the rich do so much of, and more efficiently, what the gov't purports to with massive overhead?

[citation needed] In fact, there's an easy counter-example. Healthcare. More expensive than any public system, with worse outcomes for the general population.

Democracy just means you managed to convince more idiots to say A rather than B. It's not like it is really an admirable state of affairs.

Billionaires have to at least be competent enough to make their money, and shelter it from the thieving governments and other leeches that are trying to suck it away from them.

"Billionaires have to at least be competent enough to make their money, and shelter it from the thieving governments and other leeches that are trying to suck it away from them."

Is this actually true? At having that much money you can hire someone to be competent for you in wealth management.

>It's not like it [democracy] is really an admirable state of affairs.

So, what is an "admirable state of affairs" if democracy is so objectionable to you?

Individual liberty.

Individuals choosing to engage in mutually beneficial activities, rather than being told at implied gunpoint to do what a bunch of ignorant strangers, or a tyrannical dictator, decided.

>Billionaires have to at least be competent enough to make their money, and shelter it from the thieving governments and other leeches etc etc etc

and

>rather than being told at implied gunpoint to do what a bunch of ignorant strangers

You are clearly emotionally driven on this issue so it's probably best that I step out of this discussion. You have a good day guy.

I'm fact driven.

Democracy is, literally, a majority deciding what laws all must adhere to. They don't know/care about a minority's circumstances/needs/choices, yet impose their ill-informed will through the police power of the state (to wit, obey or we'll use force increasing up to and including death).

Show me how that's not true.

> Show me how that's not true.

Stating an insane position, even one with internal logic, and then saying "show me how that's not true" does not make your position either correct or convincing.

What's more, your position is very much the one in the minority. It is incumbent upon you to convince us, or else you will simply be ignored. You haven't done anything like a credible attempt to do so.

I agree with you on the democracy point, however:

Only 56% of all billionaires are self-made.

Others inherited their money (the Walton family, the Rockefellers, eetc.)

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/10/wealthx-billionaire-census-m...

I trust politicians as much as I trust billionaires: not at all. In fact as the OP points out at least the occasional billionaire will do something productive for society. The same can't be said for the government.

> [citation needed] In fact, there's an easy counter-example. Healthcare. More expensive than any public system, with worse outcomes for the general population.

The only reason health care is so expensive in the US is because of government regulations. From doctor accreditation, FDA approval, health insurance "marketplace" rules... The government is the single largest force pushing up the price of health care.

> The same can't be said for the government.

Sure, if we pretend roads, emergency services, public schools, safer cars, hell, the very Internet we're posting on don't exist.

> The only reason health care is so expensive in the US is because of government regulations.

And yet, highly regulated, government-run European healthcare costs half what it does here.

So you want uncertified doctors, unvetted medications and health insurers to be able to do whatever they want to their captive customers. Got it.

You seem to have grasped the essence of the argument, except that health insurers wouldn't have captive customers because the captivity is enforced largely by government regulations.

The point is that mandatory certification of doctors, medications vetted through a highly risk averse process and having no flexibility in dealing with health insurers all secure better outcomes at a cost that nobody apart from the government thinks is reasonable. If anyone had a choice, which they do not, they would probably choose something cheaper.

It is lovely that surgeons are all wealthy, articulate, over-educated polymaths with numerous hobbies and interests (and can probably play a musical instrument, I don't know), etc, etc, except it isn't actually obvious why they need all that. At the end of the day a surgeon needs experience, steady hands and an aversion to doing things that are not necessary. And when tested people will prefer cheap with a good reputation to overqualified but approved by some guild.

It isn't like accidents don't already happen. Can't escape from risk using bureaucracy; minimising risk at all costs is a sign that people are making bad decisions.

> The same can't be said for the government.

Good point! We all know how ARPANET turned out.

Google got a lot of government funding at the outset too I heard ...

Assuming you live in the USA, the simple fact, that you can leave your house and have access to a (still) working transportation infrastructure and do not need (I hope) private security to protect your life and property is proof that the Government does something productive for society.

I am as off by a lot of recent Government actions and their seeming inability to fix obvious issues. But to argue they to nothing productive for society? That is just plain wrong.

Also, I'd like to highlight that millions of citizens are only healthy/alive because of regulations. Are they perfect? Far from it, but can we live without them? No.

It's a mixed bag. My daughter-in-law was doing a rotation in Baltimore at Johns Hopkins, and the commissioner of police(?) that lived on her block was mugged. She definitely didn't feel safe there, and will not likely accept a residency there because of the security situation.

So in Baltimore at least, the local government has fundamentally failed at some of the things mentioned.

Baltimore is a funny one, because I was reading about it and it's actually in one of the wealthiest, most educated parts of the US. But the city itself is a dump. What's going on there if you've got all these wealthy, educated people around, and yet the place is a kip. Is everybody just sitting in their gardens in their leafy suburbs while the world around them burns?

Well, obviously this is not a binary situation. There is more than one government, and event within the same government, it's still people governing and people being governed. I am afraid we have to expect some gradient here.

>Also, I'd like to highlight that millions of citizens are only healthy/alive because of regulations

Citation needed? There were practically no regulations a century ago compared to now, and while more people died then, it certainly wasn't millions (unless you're counting something like vaccines as "regulation").

Looking at increased average life expectancy [1], decreased child death rates [2] etc over the last 1-2 millennia, I'd say millions is a very reasonable estimate.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

[2] https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality

There are a lot of regulations you'd have to add up, but millions probably isn't an enormous stretch.

Crumple zones, seat belts, and air bags save tens of thousands a year (https://www.nhtsa.gov/seat-belts/seat-belts-save-lives).

The EPA estimates the Clean Air Act alone saved 100k/year. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171226105042.h...

Lead paint, workplace safety, FDA approval, product recalls, aviation safety... Hell, fighting the tobacco industry is a big regulatory move.

> More expensive than any public system, with worse outcomes for the general population.

That presupposes the US would have a cheaper system if it were public. (Also most European systems aren’t “public systems” but that’s a separate issue.) We spend more per student on our public education system than almost every other OECD country, to get far worse results. Our public transit systems spend several times as much money per mile to build transit, again to get worse results. There are scant few examples of the US public sector being competitive with those of well-run European countries. (In fact I can’t think of any.) Remarkably, Canada’s non-military government spending per person is lower than America’s non-military government spending, and Canada offers significantly more services for less money.

I don’t think it is at all clear that costs wouldn’t go up under a public healthcare system in the US.

>I don’t think it is at all clear that costs wouldn’t go up under a public healthcare system in the US.

I'm a simple mathematician, so I'll admit that I tend to look at issues where numbers are involved a bit too simply sometimes. Having mentioned that, shouldn't it be self-evident that costs will go up?

You'd essentially be playing an actuarial/insurance game and on-boarding an enormous number of new beneficiaries. Naturally costs will go up. Costs per capita will go up as well due to issues like logistics. Issues that are avoided currently by, for example, simply not providing services in certain areas. (I suppose issues like logistics are not so much "avoided", as they are "offloaded". For instance, people in rural america where senior citizens sometimes have to drive 60 miles to get emergency services.)

On the flip side of all that, I suppose the entire point of government healthcare is to provide necessary services for people who are not currently being served. So at least we can see the benefits of the extra money in the goveernmental case. ie - everyone is served. Which can't be said for the current system despite its enormous expense.

I'm not an expert on what costs would do under a public healthcare system, but I think "self-evident that costs will go up" is very much wrong. You add new beneficiaries, but you also change major cost centers.

For example, the healthcare industry spends a lot of time and money on medical billing, on the side of providers sending bills and insurers paying them. Clearly some of this would be reflected in new and different bureaucracy, but probably less of it (and certainly not self-evidently more).

Also, preventative care can be much better than reactive care. Sure, a public health care provider would have to spend more money on insulin for diabetics when all of them are covered, but maybe it will spend less on emergency room visits for patients who suffer serious complications of poorly managed diabetes and can't pay the ER bill.

> More expensive than any public system, with worse outcomes for the general population.

US public schools are also more expensive than any public system, with worse outcomes for the general population. These are operated by the government.

There is little evidence that making a service "public" will make it less expensive to operate, quite the opposite. The underlying cause of relatively expensive US services is not who is operating it, as they are expensive no matter who does.

Because the government is democratically elected.

Tyranny of the majority is a bad thing.

> Tyranny of the majority is a bad thing.

Tyranny of the minority is significantly worse.

Hence this country being founded on a core of individual rights: everybody just let others be, quit bossing each other.

> Because the government is democratically elected. Billionaires are not.

Billionaires are as much democratically elected via purchase. Noone put a gun to our head to use AWS use Google or buy a car. On the other hand, political party campaigns require billionaires' cash. Doesn't look so democratic.

> > Why the notion that gov't should be the provider & arbiter of all?

> Because the government is democratically elected.

We didn't democratically elect them to be the provider and arbiter of all. In fact, we deliberately designed a system where there are limits on what the government can do, because we didn't want the government to be the provider and arbiter of all.

what is more democratic than letting people choose we’re their money goes to directly?

Why should the average American pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes?

Allowing the rich to choose what organizations and causes are worth supporting is certainly not Democratic. For example, you have private schools getting massive amounts of donations from Alumni, while the local elementary is shutting off water fountains because of lead exposure and they can’t afford to update the plumbing. I also don’t think the kids in the school with books so old they don’t mention 9/11 care about the millions donated to the art museum.

Why should the average American pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes?

They shouldn't. All should pay $0 taxes.

We expect adults be financially independent after a few decades. The gov't, with its ability to literally make money along with other unique powers, should be financially independent after 225 years.

The gov't isn't supposed to be some entity on its own but an orchestrator of society, balancing things, running ahead of feedback loop effects etc.

The whole concept of "financially independent govt" sounds like they are spending the tax earnings just on themselves. Of course they have overhead costs, but the main function of the govt is to redistribute.

They are supposed to be like the heart that pumps the blood around, and doesn't just use it up all for itself.

the main function of the govt is to redistribute.

Absolutely not. That's communism, which never does - and never can - turn out well.

The USA was founded on the main function of gov't is to protect individual rights - that each knows & serves his own interests better than strangers.

But then what? Roads and police, that's it?

It seems like many Americans view the government as some external entity that imposed itself on the people and now the people have to keep them in quarantine. A bit like how we felt in Hungary when the Soviets were sitting on us. They came in and now are taking our stuff away.

But a country's own govt isn't supposed to be "those guys who came in and took our stuff for themselves", but rather a network of institutions that help organize society for things where market forces are not appropriate for several game theoretical reasons.

what makes you think society can’t organize itself?

The state only exists for protection of its members: military protection from other states and the monopoly on violence with a system of law internally

Overtime a lot of stuff just gets tacked on

A gift to enemies of the USA :)

These individuals accumulated their massive wealth by utilizing the infrastructure and economic substrate of our society. So the people who make up that society have a right to decide democratically how some of those resources are allocated. That’s the deal.

Even assuming you are right, there are many more important values than mere efficiency. Governments are the only bodies which can realistically pursue the values and needs of the people in the face of massively powerful multinational corporations. Of course there is always room for improving the effectiveness of government, but the alternative is blind faith that the super-rich know best for us, despite their limited perspective and many well-documented flaws and biases.

Everybody had equal access to the infrastructure and economic substrate, billionaires just made better use of it to generate more value, so why should they have to pay more?

They create far more negative externalities?

They literally can and do pay for laws written in their favor, to entrench their interests, limit their competition, and adjudicate their behavior? See, even they agree they should "pay more."

And because obviously they have more to lose if government services decline. They are the primary driver of demand for government services. Many of them need a functioning military, aviation, infrastructure, law enforcement, patent office, and other services to continue to make their billions.

If all the highways, gas pipelines, airports, Internet backbone and the Pacific Fleet in America crumbled to dust tomorrow, I'd be greatly unhappy but WalMart, Amazon, and Facebook would be ... well let's just say disproportionately affected.

Because they have the ability to do so and so we can create more value in the future.

Also, doesn't it seem fair that those who benefit the most from society contribute back the most?

> Everybody had equal access to the infrastructure and economic substrate

Lastly, this point is more thornier, but I think it is easy to say that this isn't true across the board.

Well 1) everyone does not have equal access in practice and 2) they should have to pay more specifically to help provide more equal opportunities to everyone in the future instead of resigning ourselves to dynastic feudalism. And also because ultimately that is the explicit agreement that one enters into by choosing to participate in this society.

"Why do none of the "they don't pay enough taxes" crowd not realize the rich do so much of, and more efficiently, what the gov't purports to with massive overhead? Job creation, charity, arts funding, lowering costs of necessities, etc - and at levels & locations which gov't would never achieve."

Is this actually true? The vast majority of research and innovation is gov't funded. The vast majority of tuition reimbursement and educational spending is gov't. The US Gov't is the biggest employer in the nation of the USA. Medicare, food stamps, disability spending, and social security altogether dwarf any charity that the rich is doing in the US.

What is the rich doing to the public benefit that governments aren't dwarfing them in doing? I'm super baffled here.

> Is this actually true?

Not even remotely. Not even in the same ballpark as true. Not even the same sport.

Everyone deserves a say in the allocation of resources. The way we accomplish that is through government. Elon Musk is not improving the environment, he's launching cars into space for giggles while mistreating his workers.

> Everyone deserves a say in the allocation of resources.

How about we amend that to, 'Everyone deserves a say in the allocation of resources, in proportion to their demonstrated ability to amass and manage resources'.

Elon Musk figured out how to make a ton of money; he has more right to determine its use than some bureaucrat in an office. You say that government is our method of collective allocation, but it's really unelected officials doing what lobbyists recommend. I trust them a lot less than I trust a rich philanthropist.

No thanks! The "demonstrated ability to amass and manage resources" is mostly a matter of luck, with a small dash of willingness to exploit others. Everyone deserves an equal say in the allocation of resources. It pains me to say that this must include even those who are willing to exploit other people to amass resources.

By what reasoning does someone deserve a say in the allocation of something they made no contribution to producing? How would you feel if somebody came to your house, ate your food and slept on your bed, because they felt they deserved a say in how those resources were allocated?

> The "demonstrated ability to amass and manage resources" is mostly a matter of luck, with a small dash of willingness to exploit others

Citation very much needed. I'd say "luck given the presence of opportunity and ability", perhaps - but luck alone is certainly not enough. (Or else why do lottery winners do so poorly?)

As for "the willingness to exploit others", is this universally true? Are performers exploiting their audiences? Companies their customers? Their workers? Their vendors?

I think that would be trivially true for some definitions of "exploit", but that is not the definition of exploit that most people would tend to think of.

Isn't that what lobby groups do anyway? Seems like this is somewhat covered by the current political system.

That's what we have now. The more resources (money) you have, the more say (speech) you get. Citizens United.

> in proportion to their demonstrated ability to amass and manage resources'.

This makes the huge assumption that "the market" is already equitably rewarding talent with money. It is not. Luck, heritage (inherited wealth and power), and race/gender all skew how much you can amass and the effects are exponential, not linear.

That might still result in a better mapping of resources to ability than dividing resources equally among the population, though.

> it's really unelected officials doing what lobbyists recommend

The rules they run by are created by your elected representatives.

That logic justifies Kings and Dictators; if someone, by force, amasses total power over a people, then according to your rule they deserve to control it.

Kings and Dictators get overthrown for a reason.

All people deserve to have a say in society, even if they don't want it, use it poorly, or use it reluctantly. It's not because human rights should matter to all individuals, it is because the implementation of human rights and equality is a better guarantee of social stability, and therefore a better conduit for trade and growth.

Kings and Dictators open up a society to turmoil and instability, which is bad for markets. There is no reason for a society not to guarantee social stability through measures of equality at this point.

There's a huge difference. Kings and dictators get power through war and violence. Musk got rich through making and selling things people want. Surely you see the difference between war and commerce.

Well actually no. Kings and Dictators also gain power by being opportunistic in the same way as Musk. They begin by amassing social power, and then at the right moment they take over. See the Medici family of Florence, or the East India Company. War is not the only means for domination.

Also, the only difference between war and commerce is the level of violence applied. War is an exchange, just as commerce is. The only difference is what is being offered in the exchange. In commerce "I will give you this for that." And in war, it's the same: "I will give you my bullets for your surrender."

Lastly, Elon Musk didn't just get rich through selling things people want. No one believes that this works. Henry Ford even said as much: "If I had asked people what they wanted they would have asked for faster horses." Musk gained his power by being opportunistic. He jumped into opportunities at the right time, competitively fought to get the engineers he needed, and punched his way through almost every problem he faced. The product quality is a byproduct of his ruthlessness as a capitalist. Don't forget it.

> Lastly, Elon Musk didn't just get rich through selling things people want. No one believes that this works. Henry Ford even said as much: "If I had asked people what they wanted they would have asked for faster horses." Musk gained his power by being opportunistic. He jumped into opportunities at the right time, competitively fought to get the engineers he needed, and punched his way through almost every problem he faced. The product quality is a byproduct of his ruthlessness as a capitalist. Don't forget it.

I think you're horribly twisting the meaning of Ford's words there. It doesn't mean "ignore what people want", it means to figure out what they actually want. People didn't want faster horses, they wanted better transport - "faster horses" was just how they expressed that.

I think you're horribly twisting my words. I didn't mean that at all. I meant exactly what you wrote and there really isn't anything there for you to accuse me of otherwise.

How is the ability to amass resources relevant to competence in determining the appropriate allocation?

That's like saying that winning a game makes you competent to referee it.

You amass resources by investing (allocating) them well. If you invest poorly, you lose what you invested. Over time, the person who invested best will have the most resources.

His dad somehow obtained rights to mines in Africa, you're going to tell me he "figured out how to make a ton of money" with that kind of start?

Resources don't just appear out of thin air, someone has to invest in producing/creating/mining them. Why should somebody who made no contribution to creating something have any say in how it's used?

You raise an interesting point, and I'd like to follow it further with some numbers across job creation, charity, arts funding, etc, so I can follow things more closely?

Also, how do contributions to these differ across the rich? Are there a couple of 'whales' who keep the numbers high while the other freeload or are they all equally contributing in this efficient manner?

It's also somewhat implicit (correct me if I'm wrong) in your post that government spending and voluntary contributions from the super rich are almost mutually exclusive. To argue devil's advocate, if that's not the case, both can coexist and the overall amount goes up.

One last point, I would like the super rich to be taxed at the same proportion as the middle class. I know wealth isn't linearly distributed but I do expect the relative tax bill to be - would you say that's punitive?

Multimillionaires and billionaires constantly donating to the Harvard endowment while public education--and even other private schools--is certainly overhead free, but far from an efficient use of resources.

Podcast about this specific phenomenon: http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/06-my-little-hundred-...

In that case no one should pay taxes.

Exactly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com