Government fees and services - what do we 'buy'

[Heracles 417]

American has been using option two for decades now. End result, country looks like a 2nd world country. Infrastructure has been neglected and grossly inadequate for the 21st century. Yet somehow we should leave this up to each individual to fix this huge mess. They're not going to as they have not. It's not as if my neighbor or Rush is going to build a road or upgrade our town.

I understand people's concerns but allowing fear to guide you leads to bad planning and even worse decision making. The notion that moving all essential services to the state government level will lead to some sort of dictatorship is just fear and propaganda. There is little evidence to back that up, whereas, there is ample of evidence in countries like AUS and Canada which prove otherwise. America is just too big anyway to have a central government, therefore, that would never happen. However, excluding good old American fear, nothing is stopping it from becoming more efficient and delivering better services to the taxpayer by merging various services

People don't like central governments because they associate it with communism. However, that is only one type and one extreme example of a centralized government. A central government in a market driven economy is totally different to one under communism; which decide the market as they themselves saw fit. Hey I live in one of the wealthiest counties in the country (Loudon, VA). So for myself, it's not bad. We have the best and the brightest working in the county. What about every other place? is the problem. After all, whether people acknowledge or admit it r not, we are all in this together. So while people here squabble which system is better, highly centralized countries like China are rapidly gaining speed and traction, exploiting the economies of scale realized by their central government and will soon beat us. Much in the same way walmart does it themselves. All while we stick by a model created back in the 18th century farming days.

It's also funny how we have to problem with companies centralizing and becoming mega corporations, and they truly are dictatorships as the CEO and executives get to call the shots. However, we refuse to accept the efficiencies realized from removing the billions wasted in county duplication. A system based on the old mother country, the UK, that does not have states.

Quick example: 6,882 superintendents and police chiefs, Even if they are paid $80K each, but it's probably much higher, that is $550 million in their salaries alone. Now what about their support staff and the school boards. I know in the country next to my own (Fairfax), they spend $110 million alone on administering their schools. Now imagine cutting that down to state level and paying these 100 newly appointed Superintendents and police chiefs $300k each, that way we hire the best; that would reduce the cost of their salaries to $30 million. Which straight away leaves $520,000,000 to be pumped straight back into the schools and police. If were were to calculate this based on all support staff, we are talking about $50 or $100 billion dollar saving. Not only would America have the best schools and best teachers, it would also have the best police force as this money saved would go straight back into these services.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Booyah!

[mawilson 2,133]

American has been using option two for decades now. End result, country looks like a 2nd world country.

America has been using option two for centuries. The state of the country's infrastructure

has very little to do with it.

[Heracles 417]

American has been using option two for decades now. End result, country looks like a 2nd world country.

America has been using option two for centuries. The state of the country's infrastructure

has very little to do with it.

It does. Every time I ask local members or state officials about this and that, their first response is that we don't have the money to do it. Same goes with NYC and it looking like it has not been updated since the 1920's; No money. I've driven in better roads and bridges in New Delhi than NYC. Yet strangely enough countries like Canada and Australia seem to have the money to constantly improve and renovate their cities. Yet also pay less tax, which includes zero property tax or state taxes in AUS.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Booyah!

[mawilson 2,133]

American has been using option two for decades now. End result, country looks like a 2nd world country.

America has been using option two for centuries. The state of the country's infrastructure

has very little to do with it.

It does. Every time I ask local members or state officials about this and that, their first response is that we don't have the money to do it. Same goes with NYC and it looking like it has not been updated since the 1920's; No money. I've driven in better roads and bridges in New Delhi than NYC. Yet strangely enough countries like Canada and Australia seem to have the money to constantly improve and renovate their cities. Yet also pay less tax, which includes zero property tax or state taxes in AUS.

Just imagine what the state and local governments could do if they had 20-35% of our income in taxes

to play with.

Instead, that money goes to the fuckin' Federal Gov't which hands it to their corporate cronies.

[Heracles 417]

Just imagine what the state and local governments could do if they had 20-35% of our income in taxes

to play with.

Instead, that money goes to the fuckin' Federal Gov't which hands it to their corporate cronies.

I don't need to imagine, I have seen both systems working and the Canadian / Aussie system is working better. International studies and rankings clearly illustrate that too. They have done more with less; while we are doing less with more here.

The federal government collects that taxes, ensuring that there is no loophole to avoid paying. They then allocate the money back to the states accordingly. So the states still get the money. Loopholes such as I buy from state A and don't pay tax because I am in state B are closed. As are the idiotic each state having their own tax, which makes accounting difficult. When I see $3.99 for an item on a shelf in AUS, it's $3.99 at the register. Same applies with cell bills and all of that.

[mawilson 2,133]

The federal government collects that taxes, ensuring that there is no loophole to avoid paying. They then allocate the money back to the states accordingly. So the states still get the money.

Come on, man. How much do the states get, really? 10-20% of the Federal budget?

Federal grants to state and local governments

[Heracles 417]

I'll give you a good example: DC. The district is incredibly small and does not get to realize economies of scale. End result: They have the worst performing schools in the country. One of the highest crime rate in the country too. They also even elect the biggest douches in the country. Whereas a city like DC would be managed by the Feds in Aus, as is Canberra. Have you seen Canberra? It makes Sydney and Melbourne look like a tip compared to it. Whereas the east end of DC looks like a third would country.

Now I never said the feds should manage things the counties or states already manage. However, in terms of states, the counties or cities should not individually run police, schools, fire or even their own court system. It's a huge waste of money. Money is wasted just paying duplicated bureaucratic sales and only adds to the red tape. It's also why police in this county cannot cross into this county and all of that #######. You team up all of the detectives and then you have a kick #### team. Same goes with police, schools, and teachers. The feds should and would still only manage federal issues.

Take NYC as another example, they would still look after their own city; however, police, schools, and fire departments would be managed by the state. Leaving the NYC council to actually look after NYC. To actually work on improving the city for a change; to improve the quality of life, to promote business, and bring in tourism. It's a no brainer to me.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Booyah!

[Otto 83]

When I see $3.99 for an item on a shelf in AUS, it's $3.99 at the register. Same applies with cell bills and all of that.

Same in Germany... Takes about a half-second to get really used to the idea.

[SMR 368]

I don't know why you keep bringing up roads as an example. Of course roads can and should be created by the government. I'm not really talking about government becoming a dictatorship. But I am talking about a federal government over which the average citizen has very little power. This is not just something that I am afraid of. It is a reality in the federal government in America. About all you can do is go to a town-hall meeting and yell. But then they'll call you a Nazi:).

This is an inevitable result of large scale majority rule. Those in power pander to a majority slightly larger than half. It sounds okay until you realize that at least 40% of the people are getting screwed. The real problem arises when the government starts taxing group A to pay for services for group B. This is a reality in America. 5% of the people pay 50% of the income tax. And those 5% receive almost nothing for their taxes except for national security. The more money you make, the higher your tax bracket and the less you help you get from the federal government.

CEOs aren't dictators. They are accountable to the stockholders and board of directors to make a profit. Of course you have to be able to accurately measure their performance in the long term. But that is a completely different problem. CEOs do what they do to make their company profitable or they are removed. That doesn't mean that the factory-floor grunts can vote them out, but they are still accountable.

Second, I see a big difference between state and federal government. In terms of your analysis for moving government to the state, the only real issue is that just because you pay someone more, doesn't mean you are going to get someone more capable. But in general, the theory is good. The only objection I have is that major metropolitan areas need to break off. Otherwise they naturally suck all of the resources from surrounding areas. Urban voters control the vote and so politicians have a motivation to spend all the money in those areas to pacify those voters and stay in power. It's a problem at present in many states and in certain other countries that I know of. Eliminating city and county governments only exacerbates the problem.

[Heracles 417]

Group A is not paying their fair share of tax. Group A is also earning billions, however, due to loopholes is effectively paying less tax than most. That is why Warren Buffet himself said he technically pays less tax than his secretary. In terms of group B receiving benefits or service, what service? The poor get jack here in comparison to the poor in numerous other developed market driven economies. It's actually disingenuous for anyway to suggest the poor here get some sort of free lunch when they barely get anything. Therefore, this keeps them poor. Abroad we have put two and two together and realize the best way to get them out of poverty is to invest in them to get out of poverty. The farming days are over, however, many seem to be stuck on the 18 hundreds concept of secure x land and farm for yourself. Something the simply does not work that in 2009. Heck, it’s why American farmers are receiving billions in subsidies.

We are entering a globally competitive market, one which the world has never ever seen before. Therefore, we either have the resources and personnel to compete or we don't and eventually get crushed buy other countries. The world is rapidly changing and the only thing staying the same is the US. Even proposing a foot's worth of progress or change always faces a mountain of obstacles here. Decisions just don't seem to be based on research, the success of other countries doing something or even trial and error; they're based on opinion and the past. At the end of the day, America as a nation is not moving up any international rankings, they are actually moving further and further down.

I will say this, anyone who thinks that negating the government and having each do their own thing is going to reverse the trend is dead wrong. After all, most of the countries that are ranked highly in any study are market driven economies with a strong centralized, yet efficient, government. They are countries that heavily tax the rich, as they can afford it the most, and use the proceeds to better the country as a whole. The only countries that are self-governed, allow anyone to do as they please, give the rich a free ride, refuse to investment in helping the poor are third world countries. Is that who we want to follow?

When you think about it, the American model is almost naturally heading back to its optimum environment and operating condition. An environment which encourages the rich to be mega-rich, while the rest stay dirt poor. Much like gravity, it's naturally transforming back to a model where there is a huge disparity in income between the two segments. Whereas, other developed countries have established models that don’t allow that to occur. Instead of an individual earning $2 billion, they earn $1.5 billion and the rest of the country gets to prosper too. That is, the segment who will actually spend the money and spend it in their local community.

[thepizzadude 26]

You are comparing US dollars to American dollars which is slightly unfair since Australian dollars are only worth about .83USD. Thus the Australian tax brackets go up faster that it otherwise seems. Even so, the brackets are admittedly comparable for people in the lower brackets.

However, the only thing this data proves is that the US government provides less services but has comparable taxes. Why would that make me want to trust the US government with my healthcare?

Excluding third world countries, I don't know of many countries or ever heard of many countries that have such a distrust for the government they voted in. Therefore, does this say something about the government or does it say something about the people doing the voting?

In the US all it says is we need a new system having 2 or sometimes 3 choices for the most important office held in the free world is just totally insane, and letting elected officials hold their offices forever is also insane. IMHO

I have also pointed out many times before that mainly 2nd and 3rd world countries use the presidential system. Great system in the 1700 and 1800's, not so much in the 21st century. The rest use the parliamentary system that seems to offer more accountability and less incompetence. Even with that noticeable difference aside, it's the people who hold the government accountable. Holding accountable does not mean hating on. People here treat those who work for the government like ####### then expect them to deliver. That doesn't work in the private sector and certainly does not work in the underpaid US government sector.

We don't treat them like ####### we get tired of their incompetence and then show them how we really feel.

Personally, if I criticize something like the country's 2nd world infrastructure, I will criticize it to bring attention to the issue but will suggest we need to improve abc and invest more on def. Whereas, people here hate the government but when pressed for more info, most only continue with the I hate the government because they are incompetent at what they do. That is not how you improve or solve problems. On top of that, when someone like myself with international experience provides examples of efficient governments overseas and how they did it, all hell breaks loose as it touches a nerve and I receive a go back to your country or you think you're better than us.

Maybe it is because of the fact that it is so hard to truly effect any kind of change unless you are willing to join in the ones who don't do anything anyway. A complete overhaul of the system is what is needed.