The job of a politician boils down to one simple task: to reduce the tax rate

[anotherneil]

The job of a politician in the economic sphere is to balance the budget not balloon the deficit. There is no way for the US to balance the budget without tax increases unless you eliminate the Department of Defense.

A corollary of a balanced budget is to spend money wisely which of course is a matter of debate.

If that's the case then we should eliminate the DOD (or at least cut back on overseas activities, including involvement in NATO, to start with), but the fact is that defense spending is a small & an almost insignificant percent of federal spending (12% in 2022): Budget Basics: National Defense

 

[anotherneil]

To further the common good of their nation

Yes, and reducing taxes would be good for the people of the nation.

 

[sun rise]

A free market is self-correcting. In a free market, customers would stop patronizing businesses that don't perform well; competition in a free market also allows someone else to come along and do better & outperform the existing competition.

That's the theory. What we have are gigantic corporations that control the market, work in lock step if not actual collusion and stiff customers in order to pay executives outrageous salaries. This leads to examples like Microsoft starting to push ads not because customers want them but to make more money for the executives and because customers have little choice.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

That's the theory. What we have are gigantic corporations that control the market, work in lock step if not actual collusion and stiff customers in order to pay executives outrageous salaries. This leads to examples like Microsoft starting to push ads not because customers want them but to make more money for the executives and because customers have little choice.

We also have a 'free market' where the wealthiest and largest corporations are able to buy favorable government policies to keep the competition down and ensure profits, which are paid for from tax revenues.

 

[Koldo]

The job of a politician boils down to one simple task, which to reduce the tax rate; an alternative would be to reimburse taxpayers unspent revenue & this includes actively looking for ways to save on costs, cut spending, etc.

People are always looking to save money, and in a free market, people can get things better, faster, and cheaper than they could without a free market. This is because a free market means competition is possible; this is the basic essence of a free market (there are other aspects to a free market, such as not being forced by the government to purchase a good or service).

When an engineer is designing a consumer product, the essence of their goal is to do more with less (e.g. a car that has certain features, performance, mileage per gallon of fuel, safety, etc. that costs the same or less than the competitor's car).

In a similar sense, this is what political candidates running for office actually ought to be doing with regard to tax rates, and we - as voters - can demand and expect politicians to compete for our votes by lowering the tax rate.

One might wonder, why don't we seem to be doing this? I think the answer is that they simply manage to slip by this without people noticing, partially because political parties monopolize and dominate the political scene, partially because the media very heavily controls the political "focus" - by which I mainly mean that they pick the issues and candidates to focus on or to ignore, and have huge sway on voters this way, and partly by keeping the focus on this farce of a narrative about making the super rich pay their fair share (they have way too much control over politicians - so much that such a thing isn't going to happen).

The only thing that really matters to voters who aren't rich and have to pay a big chunk of what they earned and what they have to pay for goods & services is how much of their own money they have to give up to pay taxes, not what some nameless, faceless super rich person who's supposedly not paying their "fair share" has to give up. This is a red herring to try to keep people from looking at what they have to pay in taxes out of their own pockets (or withheld, etc.).

Political candidates running for public office can and will compete with each other to reduce the tax rate; the catch is simply that the voters have to make this demand known to them.

Your rationale presumes that everyone would then be able to afford the services they need to have a decent life, but that is not an outcome that can be genuinely expected.

 

[Eddi]

Yes, and reducing taxes would be good for the people of the nation.

Yeah right, maybe in some lunatic sociopathic fantasy world

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, and reducing taxes would be good for the people of the nation.

Depends on what services you'd have to give up to reduce those taxes.

It's ridiculous to think of value only in terms of cost and not what you buy for that cost.

 

[sun rise]

Yes, and reducing taxes would be good for the people of the nation.

The financial world is yelling at the US to get it's spending house in order and you advocate for bigger deficits which would make the problem worse.

Among other things, we need to stop the socialism for the rich, major corporations and special interest groups. There's no way a billionaire should pay a lower tax rate than his secretary (Warren Buffet).

 

[anotherneil]

The Government's job is to provide its citizens the services required to uphold their fundamental rights.

Yes, of course; ideally I think this goes without saying, but the reality you have a point - government can oppress its people, commit genocide, etc.

I was assuming a constitutional republic with a bill of rights type of deal.

Right of life : through minimum standard healthcare, security, transparent rule of law, basic housing and life critical infrastructure like water, basic food, housing etc.

I'm not sure if you're suggesting central planning or command-and-control of the economy - that's socialism & it doesn't perform as well as a free market system.

This the government can do by employing private parties and competitive biddings...but it must ensure that all citizens have access to these basics.

Yes, that's what a free market does.

Right to pursuit of happiness: This will include right to property, right to free enterprise and contracts, right to education and training. The govt has to ensure that people have access to these.

Right to Liberty and Free Expression: Freedom of speech, assembly, er

Yes.

The government can easily protect all these freedoms and rights that you bring up or refer to without having to make the average person such a huge amount, like it does here in the US.

 

[anotherneil]

I refer you to the UK Railways, UK Water Companies, UK Energy companies, etc

You want to refer me to something going on in a foreign country, one with socialism and a monarchy?

 

[Eddi]

You want to refer me to something going on in a foreign country, one with socialism and a monarchy?

LOL

 

[Altfish]

You want to refer me to something going on in a foreign country, one with socialism and a monarchy?

Nothing wrong with socialism, I'd scrap the monarchy tomorrow if I could.
The mess with our privatised services was not brought about by socialism.

 

[anotherneil]

Cutting taxes and scrapping services just means that people will have to pay for those services in some other way, privately

And I think some services are best provided by the state

Yes, that's part of it; some services provided by the government are better off left to the private sector.

Some services should only be provided by the state, as in legislative, executive, and judicial type of services.

 

[anotherneil]

Nonsense!

Year by year, that would mean politicians look at last year's rate -- and lower it. Once you get it down to zero, no more need for politics. Now, dealing with the raw sewage piling up in cities might present a couple of health issues, but that's hardly your concern, is it. Just so long as you pay no tax. Pot holes? Well, if one is in your way, I guess you could fill it up. Somebody kill your kids and rob your house? A pity, but since there's no money for police, courts, trials or prisons -- or to pay the executioner -- what're you gonna do, eh? Of course, you know there'll be no water coming out of your sink -- or if there is, I'll bet you won't like the color or taste. And boiling isn't gonna be enough to make it palatable or potable.

Oh, and hey, since there's no money to pay inspectors, people who run restaurants can put anything they like on your plate, and grocery stores can sell you stuff that spoiled months ago!

And of course, there'll be no armed forces, or weapons to supply them, so if Canada decides to walk in armed to the teeth and take over, how do you propose to stop us?

Oh, and no labor laws -- employers can use you any way they want, and if you don't like it, out on the street with you! Heck they could even "let" you work for them, supply you nothing but a shack for 10 families and enough food to scrape by on. Once a month, if you're not too tired, you can all go outside and sing mournful songs about the "good ol' days" around a roaring camp-fire of a few twigs and half a log. What fun.

Straw man.

 

[Eddi]

Yes, that's part of it; some services provided by the government are better off left to the private sector.

Some services should only be provided by the state, as in legislative, executive, and judicial type of services.

Yes, executive services such as health, utilities, education, transport, welfare etc. etc.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

You want to refer me to something going on in a foreign country, one with socialism and a monarchy?

Because CERTAINLY the experiences of people in other countries can have NO MEANING OR RELEVANCE for ANYONE...

 

[Estro Felino]

Imposing taxes on small businesses is a big mistake.
.

 

[anotherneil]

I would disagree that the sole or even main function of government is to reduce the tax rate.
The task of government is to serve the people.
This includes the basics such a safety, public health and welfare, education, infrastructure and peace keeping, and establishing the provision of justice and equity between people.. this includes everything that the People collectively decided as necessary to the running of the state.

These things all have an ongoing cost which should be equitably shared by those able to contribute.
This should be done in such away as not to create national debt. Or financial distress to the people.

What do you mean by "equity between people"? Should someone who makes $36,000/year pay the same in taxes as someone who makes $10,000,000/year? What if the tax comes out to $1,000,000 - the individual making $10,000,000/year can pay that, but it's way more than the individual making $36,000/year makes in a year (uh...obviously).

 

[Nakosis]

The job of a politician boils down to one simple task, which to reduce the tax rate; an alternative would be to reimburse taxpayers unspent revenue & this includes actively looking for ways to save on costs, cut spending, etc.

People are always looking to save money, and in a free market, people can get things better, faster, and cheaper than they could without a free market. This is because a free market means competition is possible; this is the basic essence of a free market (there are other aspects to a free market, such as not being forced by the government to purchase a good or service).

When an engineer is designing a consumer product, the essence of their goal is to do more with less (e.g. a car that has certain features, performance, mileage per gallon of fuel, safety, etc. that costs the same or less than the competitor's car).

In a similar sense, this is what political candidates running for office actually ought to be doing with regard to tax rates, and we - as voters - can demand and expect politicians to compete for our votes by lowering the tax rate.

One might wonder, why don't we seem to be doing this? I think the answer is that they simply manage to slip by this without people noticing, partially because political parties monopolize and dominate the political scene, partially because the media very heavily controls the political "focus" - by which I mainly mean that they pick the issues and candidates to focus on or to ignore, and have huge sway on voters this way, and partly by keeping the focus on this farce of a narrative about making the super rich pay their fair share (they have way too much control over politicians - so much that such a thing isn't going to happen).

The only thing that really matters to voters who aren't rich and have to pay a big chunk of what they earned and what they have to pay for goods & services is how much of their own money they have to give up to pay taxes, not what some nameless, faceless super rich person who's supposedly not paying their "fair share" has to give up. This is a red herring to try to keep people from looking at what they have to pay in taxes out of their own pockets (or withheld, etc.).

Political candidates running for public office can and will compete with each other to reduce the tax rate; the catch is simply that the voters have to make this demand known to them.

I am more concerned with what they do with the tax money they get.
When I worked in Australia, tax rates were high but I didn't mind. They provided healthcare, education, child welfare. One could see how that money went to benefit the people of Australia.

Kind of like HOAs. Some HOAs provide a lot of benefits. Others simply provide a lot of rules and restrictions. Obviously some folks think in terms of the former and some in terms of the latter.

I've no problem of an increased tax rate for identifiable benefits. However were increased taxes provide no identifiable benefits or simply end up increasing non-beneficial regulations I'm not happy with.

 

[anotherneil]

That's the theory. What we have are gigantic corporations that control the market, work in lock step if not actual collusion and stiff customers in order to pay executives outrageous salaries. This leads to examples like Microsoft starting to push ads not because customers want them but to make more money for the executives and because customers have little choice.

The "theory" (as you put it) and what we actually have are not necessarily the same thing. Generally speaking, what we have now in the US is not a free market, and generally speaking, (in a free market), no one forces you to spend a penny on any products or services. In practice, I suppose one could argue that the government may practically be forcing someone to spend money on Microsoft products or its competitors, but that implies the absence of a free market.