Quote of the day: Real Cause of "voter fraud"

"Yet, in many jurisdictions politicians cry potential fraud... when the fault actually lies with underfunded and poorly constructed registration and voting systems."

- "Electoral Dysfunction", Victoria Bassetti, p.138

Could lower taxes be a ploy to discredit voting so that only the chosen few will run the country to the benefit of large corporations?

Taxes: burden or investment?

Yahoo! Finance often has articles about high tax states and low tax states: either in general or for retirees.  But this treats taxes as something extracted from the public for the benefit of a king rather than something people invest in for their quality of life.

I hope sometime I come across an article or two comparing taxes on value received.

For example, does a high-tax state spend more on education and turn out more skilled workers and more involved citizens than a low-tax state.  Does a high-tax state have more responsive public employees than a low-tax state, a state that might have rampant corruption.  Does a high-tax state have better roads than a low-tax state; the poorer roads causing more need for car repairs?

There is so much that we take for granted that governments provide that we rarely think about how it is payed for.  We grouse about taxes, but would we really want to live in a society with no taxes?

I like the quote attributed to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: “I like taxes; they buy me civilization.”

Why the rich don't care about anything but lower taxes

If you are a U.S. citizen, imagine that when shares of Chinese companies became available in the U.S. that you managed to buy stocks in 20 Chinese companies.  Five didn't do well and you sold them at a small loss, but 15 did quite well and a few are paying some nice dividends.  Would you really care that much about the U.S. economy?  The only thing about the U.S. economy you might care about is paying lower taxes.

This is precisely what many of the mega-rich are doing and thinking.  As their investments become more global, they care less about investing in the U.S.  Not just in stocks or expanding U.S. operations, but they could care even less about investing in U.S. infra-structure, including education.

They also complain about welfare, but they don't realize they are also on welfare.  They complain about those who need assistance for food and shelter, but they ignore that they are getting assistance from the taxes paid by people in other countries.  They don't need to pay for U.S. education because in China they can "hire 8,700 engineers in 15 days."

It is also amazing that many of them probably pay more in political contributions to support their agenda, including many diversionary tactics, than they would pay in taxes.  And they are probably very happy to sow dissatisfaction among potential voters to further discourage voting.

For more on how the rich have subverted rational politics in the U.S., see "Why is the GOP Suddenly Turning Against College?", James Kwak, The Atlantic, 2012-02-12, via http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-gop-suddenly-turning-against-145105656.html.

Is "prosperity" worth the cost?

Many are pointing at North Dakota as a low-tax state that is prosperous. If so, why are so many people moving out of the "high-paying jobs" areas. For some of the answers on all the costs on local people who don't have or want those jobs, see "America's Boomtown locals to big oil: We want our town back!", Blake Ellis, CNNMoney, 2011-10-24.

High and low tax states: All things considered, which is better?

Yahoo Finance often has articles about the taxation as a gauge of where to live, whether a place to work or a place to retire to. The latest was "The Most and Least Taxing States to Live and Retire In", Joel Stonington, Bloomberg, 2011-10-09.
http://finance.yahoo.com/retirement/article/113611/most-least-taxing-states-bloomberg

Many early commenters said they'd much rather live in the high tax states than the low tax states because the quality of life was better.

Articles like these never tout up the benefits received, better educated work force, better roads, better fire service, better police, better courts,… In other words, you get what you pay for.

Would you choose a hotel strictly on price? Gosh, for $10/night, you can get a tiny room with bedbugs, dirty sheets, broken springs, noisy neighbors, and no heat or air-conditioning. Or for $100/night you could get a spacious room with clean sheets, quiet neighbors, heat or air conditioning, and a "free" all-you-can eat breakfast.

Want a low-tax, business-friendly country?

Nicholas Kristof offers such a paradise in "Our Fantasy Nation?", New York Times, 2011-06-04.

The country?  Pakistan!  How many low-tax advocates are ready to move there?  Oh gosh!  I don't see any hands raised.

Kristof goes on to write about all the low-tax countries where there are insufficient police because the well-off hire their own security, no public transit because a Mercedes and a private airplane do just fine, no or little public education because private schools abound.

Remember that old nasty about "going back to where you came from"?  Why not a new one about "going where they practice what you believe"?

What is a "fair share"?

One of the buzz words on taxes is "fair share", meaning that those who have higher incomes should be paying more taxes than currently.  Those who oppose taxes in general think that "fair share" will stifle business.

What we should really be asking is: are people paying for government services balanced according to what they receive in government services and according to what they can afford to pay.

To take a trite example, many theaters offer student and senior prices.  If there are no seat-related prices, the benefit to all ticket purchasers is the same.  The assumption is that students or seniors will be less able to pay the full price and so are given a discount.  Actually it is to the theaters' benefit to entice a few more buyers to fill the seats.

So it is with government services.  Some people really can't afford to pay the taxes commensurate with the services received.  Firefighters aren't going to determine if the occupants have paid sufficient taxes before they turn on the hoses.

On the other hand, some people with relatively high incomes receive far more benefits than others.  Their businesses would not survive without the services provided by taxes.  For example, without an efficient highway system, they could not have goods brought in and goods moved out, they could not have customers come to their stores, and they could not have employees come to work.

How many big box stores went to the outskirts of cities to get cheap land?  Now few customers and employees can walk to these stores, few if any bus lines are available, and almost all customers and employees have to drive on more miles of roads.  What is the fair share of taxes for the executives of these stores who are getting big salaries?

How many oil executives are getting rich because people are driving more miles for their daily business?  What would the fair share of taxes be for them to cover all the costs of the roads, including repair, widening, traffic management, and crash assistance?

Who benefits from public education?  Of course, each of us benefits personally from our education, whether it is knowing how to be a good citizen or acquiring a marketable skill.  On the other hand, would businesses prosper without a good supply of educated people?  Since a good work force makes possible a successful company, what is a fair share of taxes for the highly-paid executives of a successful company?

"Low taxes" and "fair share" are almost meaningless phrases.  I don't have much hope for any serious thinking among politicians or voters to think past these slogans.

Taxes are not the only consideration for picking a retirement destination

Or picking any other place to move to.

Yahoo Finance republished a Kiplinger article, "5 Tax Factors to Consider When Picking a Retirement Destination", Mary Beth Franklin, 2010-10-06.

I added the following comment to the article.

Beware of isolating tax factors from all other considerations.  Maybe you'll pay less taxes in the State of Bliss but less taxes could mean slower response times by fire departments.  Slower response times may mean higher insurance costs.  Less taxes could mean less road repair.  Less road repair could mean more auto repair costs.  Less taxes could mean less regulatory oversight.  Less regulatory oversight could mean higher electricity costs.  This could mean you pay more for air-conditioning in your retirement home than you paid for heating in your previous home.

Tax factors are only one part of the two really important considerations: the cost of living and the quality of life.  Look at the big picture.

Pay less tax for roads, pay more for auto repairs

I knew that our low-tax attitude is shifting costs to auto repairs, but I didn't really know how big the problem was until I read "Lousy Roads Cost your $335 Annually", Wired, accessed 2010-04-28.

The $335 is average across the country; in some cities the average can be $750.  And that is just for repairs to cars.  The article also describes how road repairs get lower priority than new construction.  New construction is also generally done with bonds, and so that means we have to consider interest costs.  Talk about saddling future generations with debt!

There may be hope.  One federal bill is proposing that more money go into repair instead of new construction.

Lowest taxes or best quality of life

Yahoo! Finance had an item on the lowest tax states for retirees.  The more direct link to the article is "The Lowest Tax States for Retirees", Kimberly Palmer, U.S. News, 2010-03-29.

Are low taxes all there are to life?  What about the services that taxes buy?

Will there be enough well-educated health-care workers to care for these low-tax retirees as they get even older?  Not if there are not enough taxes to educate children well enough to become health-care workers.

Will there be good, safe roads for them to drive to the golf course?  Not if there are not enough taxes to keep the roads in good repair.

Will there be enough good clean water for drinking and cooking?  Not if there are not enough taxes to build the infra-structure to bring the water long distances.

And seniors have to get rid of water more frequently than younger people.  Will there be enough clean, safe rest stops as they travel.  Not if there not enough taxes to maintain rest stops.  A low tax state like Arizona is closing rest stops.

Americans love to point out how much higher taxes are in many European countries, especially the Scandinavian countries.  What they ignore is that these countries consistently come out higher on measures of quality of life.

U.S. News also has a page "Find the Best Place to Retire" with a long list of choices.  My choices of size of city, weather, health care, and activities gave cities in Minnesota, Michigan, and Vermont.  Vermont is considered by U.S. News one of the worst tax states, and many think that Minnesota and Michigan are among the worst.  For my money, I'm getting what I pay for.

Republican principles are contradictory

Some "conservatives" are calling for a return to basic Republican principles: less government, low taxes, and strong defense. I posit that these are contradictory and sometimes even useless.

Generally the proponents of strong defense imply a military that is capable of blowing other people up better than other people can blow us up. This means bigger and faster ships and planes with bigger things to blow people up.

In order to have this kind of defense, you need to have a large bureaucracy to procure, staff, and maintain it. A large bureaucracy means large government

If you have lots of thing to blow people up and a large bureaucracy then you will need to raise lots of taxes or borrow lots of money. One estimate I read was that World War II took up to 42% of the gross domestic product.

The strong defense of blowing people up is not working.

First, having more nuclear weapons than anybody else is not doing much good. And if they were used, say, like Hillary Clinton declared, to obliterate Iran, who would die? How many "bad guys" are there in any given locale? How many women and children would be obliterated? Probably more women and children than bad guys.

Second, all these "surgical strikes" with 500-lb. bombs and Predator missiles somehow have killed many women and children. Even if no women or children are killed, many believe there were. The many are both allies and enemies. Such perceptions do not hearts and minds win.

Third, what country seriously has the intent and the resources to invade and occupy the continental United States?

We have only two military concerns: nuclear proliferation and piracy.

The concern of nuclear proliferation has to be addressed with more active diplomacy than has ever been applied. If China were to increase its nuclear arsenal, what would the U.S. do but increase its nuclear arsenal. Now if the U.S., with its huge nuclear arsenal, is using harsh words against Iran and North Korea, should it surprise us that these states want to have nuclear arsenals? If the U.S. can have a nuclear arsenal for a deterrent, shouldn't these states also have a nuclear arsenal for a deterrent? It's just another arms race in the history of arms races covering almost all of human history. The only solutions are to have all sides back off, to have a nervous stalemate, or to use the arms. The latter two solutions are expensive, which doesn't help keep taxes low.

The concern of piracy cannot be addressed with diplomacy and cannot be addressed with a "strong defense". Well, diplomacy would help in isolating and reducing support for the pirates. Diplomacy would also help in co-ordinating the activities of various navies and other forces to defend ships against pirates. The "strong defense" of super-duper fighter jets, heavy tanks, and super carriers won't defend against pirates. What are needed are faster armed boats and many helicopters. But the helicopters should be prepared for Stinger missiles, something the "strong defense" provided to the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan to fight Soviet helicopters.

What about terrorism? The defense of terrorism is a combination of diplomacy and police work. Diplomacy is needed to isolate and ferret out terrorists. One country cannot do this all over the world. Police work is needed because terrorists often create and implement their deeds in cities, not isolated mountain hideouts. They are going to come in two and threes, not in brigades. Effective police work is knowing about suspicious activity and halting it before it can become a catastrophe.

Although limited government and low-taxes are laudable goals, let's hope the proponents of these change their goal of "strong defense" to "appropriate defense".

See also "India's 9/11? Not exactly", Amitav Ghosh, New York Times, 2008-12-02

High taxes or appropriate taxes?

Republicans make a big thing of charging Democrats with creating high taxes, and to many Republicans, this also means no taxes are preferred.

Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to run a successful business in a society without taxes. A taxless society has too many uncertainties. Uncertainties can be reduced with a civil society that sets and enforces rules. The price of a civil society is taxes. How much tax are we prepared to pay for what kind of civil society.

The question really should be do we have appropriate taxes for the society we want. If businesses needs skilled workers they will pay for them either with their own training programs, which cost money or with taxes for publicly supported schools. Otherwise, they will hope enough potential workers will pay for their own education.