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

[anotherneil]

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.

 

[Altfish]

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.

Is it really?

What about raise taxes and provide better services, infrastructure, etc, ?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Is it really?

What about raise taxes and provide better services, infrastructure, etc, ?

Translation....

2023 Congressional Pig Book

www.cagw.org

 

[Secret Chief]

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

What a crock.

 

[anotherneil]

Is it really?

What about raise taxes and provide better services, infrastructure, etc, ?

What about what I just said in the OP about how competition provides better things for less?

 

[anotherneil]

What a crock.

Not an argument.

 

[Altfish]

What about what I just said in the OP about how competition provides better things for less?

Not always. Competition can mean less staff, poorer standards, reduced maintenance, etc.

 

[sun rise]

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

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.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What a crock.

Yep. I can't even recall when taxes were actually lowered anymore.

 

[Secret Chief]

Not an argument.

I know, I just CBA with such nonsense.

 

[anotherneil]

Not always. Competition can mean less staff, poorer standards, reduced maintenance, etc.

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.

 

[Eddi]

The job of a politician boils down to one simple task

To further the common good of their nation

 

[sayak83]

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.

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

Right of life : through minimum standard healthcare, security, transparent rule of law, basic housing and life critical infrastructure like water, basic food, housing etc. This the government can do by employing private parties and competitive biddings...but it must ensure that all citizens have access to these basics.

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

 

[Altfish]

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.

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

 

[sun rise]

Yep. I can't even recall when taxes were actually lowered anymore.

You have a sort term memory since it was in 2017 mostly benefiting the rich, of course, and ballooning the deficit once again. Unless you are not thinking of the USA.

 

[sun rise]

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

Right of life : through minimum standard healthcare, security, transparent rule of law, basic housing and life critical infrastructure like water, basic food, housing etc. This the government can do by employing private parties and competitive biddings...but it must ensure that all citizens have access to these basics.

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

Or as the Declaration of Independence wisely put it:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

problems or limitations of free market capitalism, according to wikipedia...not the best source, but fairly compact and hits main points:

Critics of a laissez-faire free market have argued that in real world situations it has proven to be susceptible to the development of price fixing monopolies.[43] Such reasoning has led to government intervention, e.g. the United States antitrust law. Critics of the free market also argue that it results in significant market dominance, inequality of bargaining power, or information asymmetry, in order to allow markets to function more freely.

Critics of a free market often argue that some market failures require government intervention.[44] Economists Ronald Coase, Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, and Friedrich Hayek have responded by arguing that markets can internalize or adjust to supposed market failures.[44]

Two prominent Canadian authors argue that government at times has to intervene to ensure competition in large and important industries. Naomi Klein illustrates this roughly in her work The Shock Doctrine and John Ralston Saul more humorously illustrates this through various examples in The Collapse of Globalism and the Reinvention of the World.[45] While its supporters argue that only a free market can create healthy competition and therefore more business and reasonable prices, opponents say that a free market in its purest form may result in the opposite. According to Klein and Ralston, the merging of companies into giant corporations or the privatization of government-run industry and national assets often result in monopolies or oligopolies requiring government intervention to force competition and reasonable prices.[45]

Another form of market failure is speculation, where transactions are made to profit from short term fluctuation, rather from the intrinsic value of the companies or products. This criticism has been challenged by historians such as Lawrence Reed, who argued that monopolies have historically failed to form even in the absence of antitrust law.[46][unreliable source?] This is because monopolies are inherently difficult to maintain as a company that tries to maintain its monopoly by buying out new competitors, for instance, is incentivizing newcomers to enter the market in hope of a buy-out. Furthermore, according to writer Walter Lippman and economist Milton Friedman, historical analysis of the formation of monopolies reveals that, contrary to popular belief, these were the result not of unfettered market forces, but of legal privileges granted by government.

 

[Eddi]

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

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

he job of a politician boils down to one simple task, which to reduce the tax rate

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.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

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.