[rpedela]

> taxation is a cost on the person paying for it, and will have the same effects to him as if the person lost the taxed money into the abyss.

In my town, in addition to the normal local taxes, there is a special greenery fee/tax that all residents must pay. It is only $25/year. The purpose is to pay the upkeep of all the green spaces which there are many. I happily pay this because I like to walk through these green spaces. Individually there is no way that $25/year would pay for that, but collectively the town can afford to and it improves living here for all the residents.

There are of course many examples where tax money is not used wisely, but there are also many examples where it is. We should get better at spending it wisely which is of course easier said than done. But to say that taxes are like throwing money into the abyss just doesn't stack up to the data.

[sjwright]

And while we all would prefer greater efficiency in government, an inefficient government is still universally preferable to an absent or non-functioning government.

Also, if that inefficiency is in the form of salaries or domestic spending, it's only partly wasted as it adds to movement of money in the economy.

[conanbatt]

God no. The broken window fallacy comes back from 1830, before Bastiat.

If you pay someone to do nothing you waste both the money you used that could have gone to something useful and the time of the person that would have done something else, hopefully productive, instead.

[sjwright]

That assumes that a maximally efficient economy is also the maximally desirable. I strongly disagree. (Though if a generous UBI was already in place, I could change my mind...)

[conanbatt]

No, it just debunks that the idea of burning peoples time is a benefit for society.

[conanbatt]

If you are happy to pay for it, why do you need it to be a tax? You can pay your government directly.

Unless you want other people to pay for it, of course.

[rpedela]

That is what a tax is and how it is levied. The people in the town agreed via voting to levy the tax so that we could all collectively benefit. I am sure some people disagreed but that is democracy.

[conanbatt]

Do people that vote against it not get to pay for it?

Democracy is not a justification for payment. 51% can vote to rob the other 49%.

[rpedela]

Democracy is a justification actually. That is the point of the system. If you want a different one, good luck but so far no one has been able to beat democracy. Personally sometimes I get what I want and sometimes I don't. Democracy is a compromise.

[conanbatt]

You are conflating the validity of a political process with the validity of an economic process. Saying that 51% can rob 49% and that is fine both in justice or economic terms means that you have no capacity to argue against anything but the number of votes. IT truly destroys your position to say that the only right thing is the result of a poll.

But lets say I go down this path with you, one that is not only not how democracies work, but a reprehensible if it were. Lets put it up to a poll then. Lets vote for all these issues and see what happens. The results might surprise you. I have seldom if ever seen a vote for a tax increase to pass popular support.