Do governments ever have enough?

[shnaek]

We hear the arguments every day. More 'resources' (meaning money) for health, education, social welfare etc. Got me thinking - is there any limit to what governments, or other bodies, need in terms of resources(money)?
I think that you could take every cent in the world and give it to government, or government bodies, or social welfare - and the complaints of lack of resources or unfairness would continue. They will never have enough money, and that is why there should be a limit (percentage, not absolute) to the amount of tax any person should pay purely because the apetite of government and the spending sections of society can never be met.
A fundamental question everyone should ask is: Do I trust this government with my money?
If the answer is no, then we should refuse to give further resources until we can trust them with our money. Because the alternative is that they will spend and spend until none of us have anything left.

 

[callybags]

We voted them into power, so that is an indication of trust.

Witholding taxes will achieve nothing, and only make matters worse.

 

[shnaek]

Witholding taxes will achieve nothing, and only make matters worse.

Witholding taxes will never happen as you'll never get a critical mass of people to do it. But we could constitutionally limit the deficits that our government runs, and constitutionally limit the amount of income tax we pay. Give people a referendum on it. Why not?

 

[MrMan]

I think how funding for each dept is otganised needs to be changed. We have a situation were budgets are being spent purely because if they are not then next years budget will be smaller. Funds should be available on priority and on a needs basis and wastage needs to be punished.

 

[MrEBear]

Just because we voted them in doesn't mean we trust them. It was kinda the best of a bad bunch. They first need to earn that trust and so far we haven't seen anything to warrant such trust (though I do believe we will)

Bear

 

[Purple]

Just because we voted them in doesn't mean we trust them. It was kinda the best of a bad bunch. They first need to earn that trust and so far we haven't seen anything to warrant such trust (though I do believe we will)

Bear

+1
Ask yourself this (another poster posed this question a few months back and it's a good one); which politician would you let run your business for you?

Governments waste money because it's not their money. They didn't earn it so they don't appreciate it or value it as they should. This is the case with right or left wing governments. It is the reason that for the sake of society as a whole and the freedom of the individual within that society it should be the objective of every citizen to limit the size of their government as much as possible.

In answer to the first post the answer is never, governments will never have enough of our money and will never seek to limit their control over our lives. They may not be overt in this and may not consciously want to so controlling but that’s what happens.

 

[Firefly]

It is the reason that for the sake of society as a whole and the freedom of the individual within that society it should be the objective of every citizen to limit the size of their government as much as possible.

A lot easier said than done. Reagan had this philosophy but according to a recent BBC documentary the US government actually increased under his administration. Too many people benefit from a growing government....unions (union subs), middle managers (empire building - more people quicker promotion), politicians (pet projects/hospitals/motorways)...the list goes on. All the while money is being taken out of the productive sector.

 

[Purple]

Rightwing governments seek to control different things, different aspects of our lives but they are just as controlling as left-wing governments. The further they get away from the centre, to either the left or the right, the more ideological they are and so the more they seek to impose their ideology on society and so the bigger their apparatus has to be.

 

[ringledman]

Never trust any government. Where there is no profit and loss mechanism and where governments can only go bust much later than businesses do, then big government is a recipe for disaster.

Western governments need to be shrunk by about 70% to bring back prosperity.

The USA rose to being the wealthiest nation in history on the back of a small state and private enterprise. They are now slowly falling from grace like the rest of us on the back of statist failure.

 

[Purple]

+1, Well said ringledman

 

[Chris]

Witholding taxes will never happen as you'll never get a critical mass of people to do it. But we could constitutionally limit the deficits that our government runs, and constitutionally limit the amount of income tax we pay. Give people a referendum on it. Why not?

I agree with this totally. What we need more than any illusory private sector regulations that could have saved us, is regulation of government through the ultimate controlling legislation, the constitution. I would advocate that government should be granted precisely a 0% deficit allowance, forcing politicians to pay for everything they want to do out of taxation. This would quickly change how easily the public's support is granted. Secondly I would like to see a law that prohibit's government from bailing out any industry or organisation that cannot stand on its own two feet.
And thirdly I would like to see a law that forces all existing and new laws to be applicable to all members of society in an equal way, thus stopping special privileges granted to the loudest or most influential groups of people.

A lot easier said than done. Reagan had this philosophy but according to a recent BBC documentary the US government actually increased under his administration. Too many people benefit from a growing government....unions (union subs), middle managers (empire building - more people quicker promotion), politicians (pet projects/hospitals/motorways)...the list goes on. All the while money is being taken out of the productive sector.

Yes, Reagan is often highlighted as the deregulator and small government president. I think during his first campaign he said "We could say [Democrats] spend money like drunken sailors, but that would be unfair to drunken sailors. It would be unfair, because the sailors are spending their own money." Only to then go on and increase the federal budget over an 8 year period. At the same time Clinton is talked of as a president that not only balanced the budget but ran a surplus. But if you look at a federal debt chart you will see that the debt level never decreased during the Clinton administration, which it would have had to if there had been a surplus. Fancy off-balance sheet accounting was the solution there.

Never trust any government. Where there is no profit and loss mechanism and where governments can only go bust much later than businesses do, then big government is a recipe for disaster.

Western governments need to be shrunk by about 70% to bring back prosperity.

The USA rose to being the wealthiest nation in history on the back of a small state and private enterprise. They are now slowly falling from grace like the rest of us on the back of statist failure.

Agree 100%. Frederic Bastiat said it best: "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." (I highly recommend reading his works)
And precisely because of the forced actions of the majority vote, we need more restrictions on what government can do. Just to add another quote from Jefferson: "The government is best which governs least"

 

[shnaek]

Agree 100%. Frederic Bastiat said it best: "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." (I highly recommend reading his works)

Just reading some of his work now.

"Government is not slow to perceive the advantages it may derive from the part which is entrusted to it by the public. It is glad to be the judge and the master of the destinies of all; it will take much, for then a large share will remain for itself; it will multiply the number of its agents; it will enlarge the circle of its privileges; it will end by appropriating a ruinous proportion. "
Written 150years ago and very valid still.

 

[Complainer]

that is why there should be a limit (percentage, not absolute) to the amount of tax any person should pay purely because the apetite of government and the spending sections of society can never be met.

The appetite in question is not the Govt's appetite for spending, it is the public's appetite for public services.

 

[Purple]

The appetite in question is not the Govt's appetite for spending, it is the public's appetite for public services.

Spoken like a true socialist.

People, in general, would like to run their own lives. The more of their money the government takes the more the government runs their life.

 

[Chris]

The appetite in question is not the Govt's appetite for spending, it is the public's appetite for public services.

But people do not vote for public services they vote for a small amount of headline grabbing election promises, which are generally speaking rarely kept. Politicians are in the game of trying to convince people that they can get more out of government than they put in, i.e. the mythical free lunch. The problem is that unless someone has little or no non-state income, the majority of people to not get their money's worth out of government services.

 

[ringledman]

Politicians are in the game of trying to convince people that they can get more out of government than they put in, i.e. the mythical free lunch.QUOTE]

This is the problem. Politicians will do anything to get elected, even at the expense of ruining your economy.

Labour over here in the UK would do anything to increase the electorate who voted for them, the more state dependents the better their chances of relelection.

Once politicians with a bit of integrity who try telling the truth come along that you cant spend more than you take in tax receipts, the electorate dont want to hear it.

Most of the general population are too stupid to understand debt and deficits and there are usually damaging parties who try and sell the bad economics for nothing more than political gain.

The West is truely in a mess brought on by government intervention.

Which part of the world is in a multi decade secular boom? Asia.

The reason? Low debt, low state intervention (or reducing state intervention), small welfare state, large private industry.

I have no confidence in the West to sort its statist failure out. Obama is a joke, the European leaders likewise. Even the tories who I vote for are only cutting the pace at which the state is growing!

High taxes, low growth, burdensome regulation is the future for us. Wealth will continue to decline.

 

[Complainer]

Politicians are in the game of trying to convince people that they can get more out of government than they put in, i.e. the mythical free lunch. The problem is that unless someone has little or no non-state income, the majority of people to not get their money's worth out of government services.

I didn't hear any 'free lunch' promises in the recent election campaign. All parties were very clear about the very difficult situation we were in and the difficult times ahead. There is no basis in fact for your claim that people don't get their money's worth. What price do you put on a walk on Killiney beach? Or a hike through Tibradden and the Pine Forest. What price do you put on clean air, and clean water? What price do put you a largely civilised society? And that's before we even think about the obvious spend areas like health, education and public transport.

 

[Firefly]

I didn't hear any 'free lunch' promises in the recent election campaign. All parties were very clear about the very difficult situation we were in and the difficult times ahead. There is no basis in fact for your claim that people don't get their money's worth. What price do you put on a walk on Killiney beach? Or a hike through Tibradden and the Pine Forest. What price do you put on clean air, and clean water? What price do put you a largely civilised society? And that's before we even think about the obvious spend areas like health, education and public transport.

We are very lucky to have those benefits you mention and compared to a lot of places in the world we take them for granted. However, these were all available before the large increase in PS numbers and bench-marking.

 

[Complainer]

We are very lucky to have those benefits you mention and compared to a lot of places in the world we take them for granted. However, these were all available before the large increase in PS numbers and bench-marking.

That depends on how deeply you look. We had nothing near an adequete number of resource teachers and special needs assistants in our schools in the past, resulting in a generation of children (who only get one chance at their childhood) being left behind.

 

[Chris]

I didn't hear any 'free lunch' promises in the recent election campaign. All parties were very clear about the very difficult situation we were in and the difficult times ahead. There is no basis in fact for your claim that people don't get their money's worth. What price do you put on a walk on Killiney beach? Or a hike through Tibradden and the Pine Forest. What price do you put on clean air, and clean water? What price do put you a largely civilised society? And that's before we even think about the obvious spend areas like health, education and public transport.

What we heard is that services would not be affected, and those that could best afford to pay will pay. To a lot of people that is the free lunch promise.

The problem with putting a price on items that you list is that price paid is totally subjective. I have never walked on Killiney beach, and probably never will, so to me the price of a walk there is totally irrelevant. Yet I pay for people to walk there. Now I am not an anarchist and believe there is a limited role for government to serve certain needs of the public. But providing nice places to go for a walk is certainly not one of them.

The basis for my claim that people are not getting their money's worth lies in the fact that funding government services is not voluntary. If people were getting such great service and value for money, then why not make taxation voluntary. Surely if we are getting such good value for our money we would continue to pay for the service.

What we have these days is a situation where politicians believe that things cannot be left to individuals to decide and that money has to be taken from people so that they can enjoy certain things. But how do you explain that so many things now monopolised by government were enjoyed by everyone before the state took control?