This question is mainly addressed to people who have complaints with having to pay taxes that go toward paying for other people's lives (fiscal libertarians).
Envision a society where:
People who do not use government services (public education/national health care, etc.) do not pay taxes for that service (in the U.S. even if your children are in a private school, you still pay taxes and some of that tax money is used to fund public schools).
A heavily progressive tax is imposed on those who use the government service. The revenue created from this particular taxation is kept separate from other government money and used only to fund the service.
The government service is voluntary and competes with private businesses. Many people say, "when government 'competes', guess who always wins?" but if people are offered the incentive of lower taxes for not using the service, many people would not use the service, but of course, many still would, and so the government service would be able to efficiently compete with private businesses.
What are your thoughts on this, do you have anything to offer, do you see a flaw in this idea, etc?
Critical_rationalist:
I'd imagine the government would charge taxes of a similar amount to a market price for the services.
So, "government entities would be FORCED to charge market prices in order to stay solvent and not dip into other sources of revenue", but I'm not sure I entirely understand your point there.
L:
I don't get you. You say
"First, you are confusing government education with the current health care debate."
No I'm not, I'm talking about both government services in a hypothetical country."
You say,
"And I ask you this, do you think the government does a great job educating. Well, they will now be in charge of health care."
Under my idea, they would not be in charge of health care, I don't see how you come up with this idea. They would compete with private business like any other company.
Envision a society where:
People who do not use government services (public education/national health care, etc.) do not pay taxes for that service (in the U.S. even if your children are in a private school, you still pay taxes and some of that tax money is used to fund public schools).
A heavily progressive tax is imposed on those who use the government service. The revenue created from this particular taxation is kept separate from other government money and used only to fund the service.
The government service is voluntary and competes with private businesses. Many people say, "when government 'competes', guess who always wins?" but if people are offered the incentive of lower taxes for not using the service, many people would not use the service, but of course, many still would, and so the government service would be able to efficiently compete with private businesses.
What are your thoughts on this, do you have anything to offer, do you see a flaw in this idea, etc?
Critical_rationalist:
I'd imagine the government would charge taxes of a similar amount to a market price for the services.
So, "government entities would be FORCED to charge market prices in order to stay solvent and not dip into other sources of revenue", but I'm not sure I entirely understand your point there.
L:
I don't get you. You say
"First, you are confusing government education with the current health care debate."
No I'm not, I'm talking about both government services in a hypothetical country."
You say,
"And I ask you this, do you think the government does a great job educating. Well, they will now be in charge of health care."
Under my idea, they would not be in charge of health care, I don't see how you come up with this idea. They would compete with private business like any other company.