[twmb]

Taxes are not very high in the US. We have about 26.9% total tax revenue (which I will abbreviate TTR. TTR is measured as a percentage of GDP)[0][1]. I hate seeing this statement thrown out as if it is fact. We have very low taxes comparatively, especially given our status as a highly developed and competitive economy.

We are #7 on the Global Competitive Index, behind Switzerland (29.4% TTR), Singapore (14.2% TTR), Finland (43.6% TTR), Sweden (47.9% TTR), Netherlands (39.8% TTR), and Germany (40.6% TTR) [3].

Sweden, the Netherlands, Finland and other countries that are close below the US have socialist governments. As much as hip, intellectual go-getters who read Ayn Rand would love there to be no government, it's simply not feasible. It may be great in theory, but it's not great in practice. However, I do not know much about the Ayn Rand's entire philosophy, so I wont comment on it further. I do know that most people who blindly latch on to some of her ideas don't truly understand her philosophy.

Half of that 'regulatory capture' you refer to is because of private interests lobbying for government restrictions. The will of the free market may drive such anti-competitive practices by private interests out of business eventually, but humans do not operate on the long term.

Regardless, the point of this post is that even if you thought you opened up your eyes before to the realities of the world and exactly how it should work, I invite you to take a step back every now and then and reevaluate your philosophies.

[0]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenu... [1]http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numb... [3]http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GlobalCompetitivenessReport...

[javert]

> Taxes are not very high in the US. We have about 26.9% total tax revenue (which I will abbreviate TTR. TTR is measured as a percentage of GDP)[0][1].

So, 27% of the economy is shifted towards government, which is almost entirely consumption, not production... that's a massive amount of waste. I mean, it's 27% of the entire US economy! Of course, you probably interpret the utility of this shift differently than I do. No need to argue ideology here.

> As much as hip, intellectual go-getters who read Ayn Rand would love there to be no government, it's simply not feasible.

As an Objectivist (i.e. I agree with Ayn Rand's formal philosophy), it is not "hip." It's incredibly painful to be a small minority that is treated with disgust by people who can't even state what they actually disagree with. This is my experience living in a college town in the US. It's a perfect way to be ostracized. Even, say, Paul Ryan Republicans who claim to like Ayn Rand will tend to personally reject me, since I'm an atheist.

> read Ayn Rand would love there to be no government

This is just technically incorrect. Ayn Rand was actually a very strong defender of government over anarchy. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

> I do know that most people who blindly latch on to some of her ideas don't truly understand her philosophy.

It's true that this is a problem. But it's a problem with those people, not with her philosophy.

> Half of that 'regulatory capture' you refer to is because of private interests lobbying for government restrictions.

Yes, there are lots of evil businessmen who seek regulatory capture. In fact, a main character of Atlas Shrugged was one such. That's why we need to keep government out of the business of business.

> I invite you to take a step back every now and then and reevaluate your philosophies.

This is an intellectually irrelevant pretension on your part. I've spent ten years actively obsessed with figuring out philosophy.

[seanmcdirmid]

Those who think taxes are high in the states have simply never lived outside of the states.

[javert]

I'm so sick of online American-bashing, which is a fad. Please stop. Where someone has lived has nothing to do with it whatsoever.

27% of the entire economy shifted entirely to government consumption? That's a humongous amount of the economy. It's almost 1/3.

[seanmcdirmid]

I'm not bashing America, I'm even American. I just get so tired of those of us who complain about paying so much taxes and so much for gas for our SUVs and so much rent for our McMansions. And here I am living in a country where I can't even buy a car, live in a small apartment, and pay 40% income tax, and a pair of jeans sets me back 800RMB. And you know what...it's not the end of the world, it works out.

And...our government consumes less than 1/3rd of the GDP when social spending in other developed countries is at 1/2 or more! Libertarians would have us be like Somalia.

[javert]

> Libertarians would have us be like Somalia.

It's important to realize that that's not actually true. I think we should have a small government that protects citizens from force and violence. That still includes all the core functions of government (e.g. police, courts, military, I don't care if you throw in basics like roads).

That is a world apart from Somalia, or anarchism. It's actually just a return to earlier ideas of American government that served us well at the time.

To be clear, I'm not a libertarian, for reasons that aren't relevant here.

[seanmcdirmid]

> I think we should have a small government that protects citizens from force and violence.

How about protecting us from peasant revolts when our social services suck so much that people lose hope and take advantage of their second amendment rights? Or how about just avoiding the revolts in the first place by having a decent moral government that evens the playing field between rich and poor?

> It's actually just a return to earlier ideas of American government that served us well at the time.

This is BS rosy-tinted glasses revisionism that has no grounding in real history. Like how everything was better in the 50s if you just ignored segregation and the 90% tax rate we had on the rich. Did isolationalism serve us well before WWI and II? Did our hands off approach prevent the dishonest greed and speculation that led to the depression? The 1800s weren't that much better, just look at all the crashes and war that went on then.

> To be clear, I'm not a libertarian, for reasons that aren't relevant here.

Good, because libertarians tend to be bad historians and have a poor understanding of human nature.

[javert]

I think your viewpoints are completely inane.

For example, our current economic model is completely unsustainable. It's not going to prevent the "peasant revolts" you talk about. It's going to guarantee them. Yet you seem to be calling for more of the same.

I wasn't talking about the 1950s, but pre-WWI. And, yes, isolationism did serve us well pre-WWI, though I am not an advocate of isolationism at all, as a principle.

Now, to get to the interesting bit.

> having a decent moral government that evens the playing field between rich and poor

Pray, tell me where you have found a rational, reason-based morality that makes you so certain that the rich need to be punished and sacrificed to the poor? Where have you found a rational, reason-based economic philosophy that can prove that doing so will be good for the economy, instead of furthering its destruction?

[twmb]

Also, my numbering got a little off because it's late, and I can't edit. Looks funnier this way.