[gnaritas]

Half isn't getting paid from tax receipts for the other half. Everyone paying taxes is also getting benefits for what they put in. It's not as simple as just rich people paying for poor people. It's more that people kick in different amounts into the pool and then it's redistributed back out based on need. Wealth redistribution is necessary for a stable society.

[brc]

I didn't say anything about benefits. I was talking about money.

All government services are paid by taxes of one kind or another, yes? If 50% of the GDP is government spending, therefore, the other 50% is by definition non-government activity.

Half of the population is paying for the other half to live. It matters not that a public servant pays taxes - that money goes straight back into the government, and pays him back.

I disagree with you strongly that wealth distribution is <em>required</em> for a stable society. I would say that forced wealth redistribution leads to unstable societies, as it all degenerates into what is fair and unfair, of which everyones idea is different. As soon as the route to wealth becomes one of obtaining power and influence rather than hard work, you're on the road to Greece and riots in the streets. Or total collapse of government/society such as former communist countries, which were based by definition on wealth redistribution. The concept of fairness should apply only to being able to keep the bulk of the wealth created by onesself.

Government services are necessary for a stable society, no doubt. Government services in a lot of cases increase the wealth of society by providing natural monopolies such as roads, ports, police and defense. We all benefit from government services.

I'll put it into an analogy. 10 people are on a deserted island, and there are tasks to be done to survive, which is fish, collect coconuts and fresh water. If 5 people are collecting coconuts, fish and fresh water, and sharing it to the other 5, then it doesn't matter what the other 5 are doing, whether painting pictures, snoozing in the sun, formulating foreign policy or building rafts to invade the neighbouring island, you can't escape the fact that one half of the island is working to provide for the other half. When they invade the other island and find a fridge full of beer, the total wealth and benefits for the island go up, but 50% of the people are still living off the work of the other 50%.

Anyway you slice it, if you're working for the government in any way, you're getting paid by tax receipts. And when 50% of the economy is government services, one half of the economy is paying for the other half. It's not a perfect analogy but is intended to get people thinking about the size of government. The only exceptions are where governments own money-creating investments like net positive sovereign wealth funds, and they are few and far between, and usually identified by having low or no taxes.

[gnaritas]

You know the problem with simple analogies, they're simple, the world isn't.

> I didn't say anything about benefits. I was talking about money.

Of course you didn't because you think it's about money, but it isn't. So lets complicate your analogy a bit.

> 10 people are on a deserted island, and there are tasks to be done to survive, which is fish, collect coconuts and fresh water. If 5 people are collecting coconuts, fish and fresh water, and sharing it to the other 5, then it doesn't matter what the other 5 are doing.

It most certainly does matter because reality isn't that simple. If the other 5 people, in exchange for those fish, coconuts, and fresh water, also provide in exchange other necessary services to those workers such as medical care, law enforcement, and education then they most certainly are not parasites living off the backs of the productive as you wrongly imply.

It matters not whether you pay a private company via income or government via taxes if they are providing the same useful services to you; those services don't come free. The difference is a philosophical one of whether you have a choice in the matter. One half is not supporting the other, both halves are mutually supporting each other, the flow of money is irrelevant.

Your mistake is in wrongly saying the government workers are not doing anything productive or contributing in any way and that's simply not the case.

Collectivism tends to benefit the weak the most and the whole group overall while disadvantaging the strong. Individualism benefits the strong the most, benefits the collective some, and disadvantages the weak massively. As the strong are always going to be outnumbered by the average and the weak, it's only natural that any democracy tends to eventually slightly favor the collective rather than let the few dominate. But swing to far to either extreme and everything falls apart. You can't let the strong take too much or the collective rebels and you can't let the collective take too much or the strong rebel.

Redistribution of wealth through social policy maintains this balance and prevents the fall back to serfdom which is what happens when the strong get too much power/money and pass it down one generation to the next. Not taking too much and letting the individuals still accumulate a decent amount of wealth prevents the fall to communism which destroys any incentive to be productive. It's a balancing act, and it's not at all simple.

[brc]

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, because I'm not into endless thread debates. I'm going to restate my thoughts, feel free to disagree, but this is to clarify my position one more time. Anyone who ever stumbles across the thread in the future can make up their own mind.

" they most certainly are not parasites living off the backs of the productive as you wrongly imply"

You have projected speech onto me, probably from what you think my political views are : that's not what I said at all. In my island example, I don't doubt that the other half of the island are doing something productive, I just said that, in order for them to exist, the half collecting the food and water have to provide for them. It's not a chicken and egg situation : the first half have to be productive before the second half can share in the results. The analogy is that one half of the population is creating things, people are paying money for those things, and the other half is living off the excess value or money created. Government services are mostly by definition a net consumer of money, this is obvious otherwise the government would be self-funding by now.

Again, I'm talking about money, not benefits. Of course people benefit from government services, however, I'm talking about the measurement of GDP : which is a measurement of money, not benefits.

At least we agree that you can't just take from the people who produce endlessly and distribute it around. And I'm a big supporter of social safety nets like welfare and medical services. I just don't like to see the government becoming larger than the private sector in any economy.