So I've had this crazy idea of the perfect government for a while, shared it with a few people for fun, had some interesting comments, and wanted to see what some of our politically outspoken members had to say about it. (ahem, Supracentral, Nick M, Weezle, Joel W, and a few others...)
The concept is based on a couple of basic principles, and while you may not agree 100% in granting me these points, please humor me for a few minutes in order to understand where I'm coming from. These principles are as follows:
1. Organizations that exist for the sole purpose for which they were originally designed tend to out perform those that end up performing functions in which they have little real interest.
2. Privately run businesses and organizations tend to be more successful than government run organizations that exist for the same reason. A major reason for this is found in principle #1, and can explain why communism never worked.
3. Regardless of your opinion of 'corporate greed', capitalism produces the most efficiently run and productive businesses in the world, and no socialist/communist type equivalent business could ever seriously compete, all things being equal.
4. Government revenue and a country's economy are maximized at TOTAL tax rates of somewhere between 15 and 25% and no more. That includes income, sales, capital gains, property, and every other tax we have. You can look these figures up if you wish.
That's it for the basics. So with those assumptions in place, lets continue with the following assumptions:
4. A government really only exists for a few key reasons: To enact and enforce laws, to provide protection from hostile countries, to provide basic infrastructure, and to collect taxes to support these endeavors. Anything else falls outside the original reason a government exists, and therefore cannot realize it's full potential.
5. Social programs do not fall within the original scope of the government.
6. Social programs are something that we all must take responsibilty for. Certainly a society as a whole has needs to provide for certain individuals who simply cannot provide for themselves, and I assume nobody on this forum would advocate killing mentally retarded citizens because they couldn't provide for themselves. I would also assume that we would all agree that society doesn't need to provide for those who simply choose not to do anything with their lives.
Okay, so we have hopefully agreed to a number of key points. Now consider this:
Imagine a government that exists only for the purposes of law enactment and enforcement, national defense, and basic infrastructure. Oh yeah, and tax collection. It would be very inexpensive to run this government compared to what we currently know. Lets say we could do it at a 10-15% consumption rate.
Staying with me now, lets look at the social programs and entitlements that our American government (well, all goverments) have to bear. They are loaded with corruption and inefficiency, basically because they fall outside the real scope of governement. A simple example is that once an entitlement is granted, it is virtually impossible to remove regardless of it's need. We rely on elected officials to handle distribution of tax dollars to social needs, but they often do so in order to impress voters, which is to say based soley on perceived benefit to their next election and not on actual need. It's just a worn out idea that costs us all way too much and accomplishes too little.
So how do I propose we handle the needs of the homeless, the mentally insane, the developmentally disabled, the elderly, and so many others? Simply and effectively: The government would oversee collection of another 10% tax in consumption for the purpose of social programs and entitlements to be sent to the private organization(s) of the tax payer's choice on an annual basis as a part of law enforcement. If you so chose, you could voluntarily make donations above and beyond the manditory 10% to suppliment some of these programs - Christians might consider this the right way to tithe, and/or you might have an area that you are especially passionate about. Who voluntarily gives the IRS an extra freaking dime? Oh yeah, and any organization, including the government itself would be subject to a public audit every 5 years to account for tax payer spending.
Think about this. An effective consumption tax rate of no more than 25% to maximize economy growth and government revenue. You choose where your money goes. Social programs that exist because they care about their cause in the first place get the money. Survival of the fittest (most efficient and productive) means only the best programs stay alive.
Consider it more. The entire country would naturally move in the directions it really needed because you would truly vote with your dollars! If a void presented itself - maybe cancer research, then you can bet more people would direct more dollars in that direction the next year. Likewise, if too much was going into one direction and people felt that a certain area was wasting more money than it needed, then it would be a safe bet that less money would end up there the next year. This is how a truest form of a democracy could exist with more than 300,000,000 citizens. Somebody will ask what qualifies an organization for these dollars? Vote for your representatives well, because that would fall under law enactment and enforcement.
What about organizations within the same realm? Same deal as businesses competing in the real world today. If McDonald's finds a way to be more efficient than other fast food chains, then they may end up on top in '06. Likewise, if Burgerking offers the best new burger this year, they may end up outgrowing McD's. The beauty of capitalism emerges and the best run, most efficient programs end up on top. Get big and do the wrong thing? Look at Enron - keep in mind that the adminstrators of Social Security would be subject to prosecution and incarceration if the same retirement plan policies were used by any private firm out there. The whle concept works in private business, and so it should work the same in publically funded social programs. Oh yeah, and the basic purposes of federal/state/local governments would be better off than ever before.
So there's no real point in this since I will probably not get a chance to overthrow any small island governement and give it a go, but it seems like the most logical next step IMO. It's all for fun, so for the politically minded, lets discuss...
The concept is based on a couple of basic principles, and while you may not agree 100% in granting me these points, please humor me for a few minutes in order to understand where I'm coming from. These principles are as follows:
1. Organizations that exist for the sole purpose for which they were originally designed tend to out perform those that end up performing functions in which they have little real interest.
2. Privately run businesses and organizations tend to be more successful than government run organizations that exist for the same reason. A major reason for this is found in principle #1, and can explain why communism never worked.
3. Regardless of your opinion of 'corporate greed', capitalism produces the most efficiently run and productive businesses in the world, and no socialist/communist type equivalent business could ever seriously compete, all things being equal.
4. Government revenue and a country's economy are maximized at TOTAL tax rates of somewhere between 15 and 25% and no more. That includes income, sales, capital gains, property, and every other tax we have. You can look these figures up if you wish.
That's it for the basics. So with those assumptions in place, lets continue with the following assumptions:
4. A government really only exists for a few key reasons: To enact and enforce laws, to provide protection from hostile countries, to provide basic infrastructure, and to collect taxes to support these endeavors. Anything else falls outside the original reason a government exists, and therefore cannot realize it's full potential.
5. Social programs do not fall within the original scope of the government.
6. Social programs are something that we all must take responsibilty for. Certainly a society as a whole has needs to provide for certain individuals who simply cannot provide for themselves, and I assume nobody on this forum would advocate killing mentally retarded citizens because they couldn't provide for themselves. I would also assume that we would all agree that society doesn't need to provide for those who simply choose not to do anything with their lives.
Okay, so we have hopefully agreed to a number of key points. Now consider this:
Imagine a government that exists only for the purposes of law enactment and enforcement, national defense, and basic infrastructure. Oh yeah, and tax collection. It would be very inexpensive to run this government compared to what we currently know. Lets say we could do it at a 10-15% consumption rate.
Staying with me now, lets look at the social programs and entitlements that our American government (well, all goverments) have to bear. They are loaded with corruption and inefficiency, basically because they fall outside the real scope of governement. A simple example is that once an entitlement is granted, it is virtually impossible to remove regardless of it's need. We rely on elected officials to handle distribution of tax dollars to social needs, but they often do so in order to impress voters, which is to say based soley on perceived benefit to their next election and not on actual need. It's just a worn out idea that costs us all way too much and accomplishes too little.
So how do I propose we handle the needs of the homeless, the mentally insane, the developmentally disabled, the elderly, and so many others? Simply and effectively: The government would oversee collection of another 10% tax in consumption for the purpose of social programs and entitlements to be sent to the private organization(s) of the tax payer's choice on an annual basis as a part of law enforcement. If you so chose, you could voluntarily make donations above and beyond the manditory 10% to suppliment some of these programs - Christians might consider this the right way to tithe, and/or you might have an area that you are especially passionate about. Who voluntarily gives the IRS an extra freaking dime? Oh yeah, and any organization, including the government itself would be subject to a public audit every 5 years to account for tax payer spending.
Think about this. An effective consumption tax rate of no more than 25% to maximize economy growth and government revenue. You choose where your money goes. Social programs that exist because they care about their cause in the first place get the money. Survival of the fittest (most efficient and productive) means only the best programs stay alive.
Consider it more. The entire country would naturally move in the directions it really needed because you would truly vote with your dollars! If a void presented itself - maybe cancer research, then you can bet more people would direct more dollars in that direction the next year. Likewise, if too much was going into one direction and people felt that a certain area was wasting more money than it needed, then it would be a safe bet that less money would end up there the next year. This is how a truest form of a democracy could exist with more than 300,000,000 citizens. Somebody will ask what qualifies an organization for these dollars? Vote for your representatives well, because that would fall under law enactment and enforcement.
What about organizations within the same realm? Same deal as businesses competing in the real world today. If McDonald's finds a way to be more efficient than other fast food chains, then they may end up on top in '06. Likewise, if Burgerking offers the best new burger this year, they may end up outgrowing McD's. The beauty of capitalism emerges and the best run, most efficient programs end up on top. Get big and do the wrong thing? Look at Enron - keep in mind that the adminstrators of Social Security would be subject to prosecution and incarceration if the same retirement plan policies were used by any private firm out there. The whle concept works in private business, and so it should work the same in publically funded social programs. Oh yeah, and the basic purposes of federal/state/local governments would be better off than ever before.
So there's no real point in this since I will probably not get a chance to overthrow any small island governement and give it a go, but it seems like the most logical next step IMO. It's all for fun, so for the politically minded, lets discuss...
Last edited:
)
