What is it with conservatives that they treat taxes as some anathema (I hope I used the correct word) to be avoided at any cost? I know there is room for cutting, but some conservatives act as if they would rather live in a sewer than to raise one penny of taxes.
This doesn’t sound like a GQ.
If you pay a large amount of taxes (as I do), a perception (that many of us have) that lots of government spending is foolish and/or wasteful will quite naturally make you feel like we could cut the waste and keep more of our own money to be spent as we decide.
There seem to be two answers that could satisfy your question.
First, some conservatives subscribe to economic theories that hold that taxation inhibits economic growth. The less you tax, the more business people do, generating more wealth, the taxation of which (at a lower rate) should provide for essential government services. Many very notable Nobel laurates have advanced these ideas.
Second, some conservatives believe that government, by its nature, infringes upon the liberties of the people. The surest way to limit the size of government is to limit its money, thus limiting the government’s influence. This does not mean that a society under limited government must live in a “sewer.” These conservatives point out that Hong Kong is a highly developed, highly successful society that features very low taxes, very low government spending, and very little interference in commerce (ie, no minimum wage laws).
And, of course, there are conservatives who think that taxes should be low based upon both the economic and the political reasons stated above.
Is this a GQ?
There is a difference between social conservatism and economic conservatism. Government can clearly be a force for social good, and I want the taxes it collects to be efficiently spent. I pay a lot of tax. While I would like to pay less, I don’t begrudge what I pay providing the money actually does improve health, education, roads and society at large. Most people in Ontario agree with this.
If conservativism means tight monitoring of money, sensible budgets and efficiency, I’m all for it. It would not seem to mean this in the present US. I agree many American conservatives take tax anathema to ridiculous levels, largely based on applied academic theories they would not dream of applying to other aspects of their life. Many of these conservatives have no problem with government subsidies to big business or the fact Bush will be putting the US in a ludicrous amount of debt that sources like The Economist believe will not help lead to jobs or help the average Joe.
Personally, I am an economic conservative and a social liberal. I want the smallest necessary government to provide a high level of services. I want low taxes, but not at the expense of service. Lots of studies also conclude lowering taxes does not generate more revenue – it’s a complicated issue. Why do conservatives always dumb these things down? Hong Kong now or in three years will be pretty different from some reverie that probably never was.
Government by its nature infringes on liberties? Maybe; not so much that people haven’t accepted huge restrictions in the name of fighting terrorism. I like having roads to drive on.
The conservative argument is that deficits can not be fixed by raising taxes, for the simple reason that government is unable to contain its impulse to spend money it receives.
This is the usual cycle: Government spends money faster than the rate of inflation and growth. Eventually, this forces it to borrow money. It continues to spend more until the size of the deficit becomes politically unpalatable, at which point something must change. At that point, liberals tend to advocate raising taxes so that government can afford to spend what it is spending. Conservatives would argue that the problem isn’t a lack of revenue, but too much spending. So they resist the plan to increase taxes.
Once taxes are increased, there may be a short-term decrease in the deficit. But once the deficit goes down to the point where it’s not a political issue, the government will begin to spend more money again, driving the deficit up once more. So in a few years you wind up in the same position, only this time with a much larger government and a smaller private sector, and a correspondingly limited capability to bail government out.
The cycle repeats until the society is impoverished, or the people demand massive change and elect conservatives.
Look around the world, and ask yourself this: Is there ANY correlation between high taxes and fiscal responsibility? Have a look at the countries with the highest tax rates, and ask yourself if they are in a better financial situation because of it. Have a look at Germany and France, both of which have ridiculously high taxes, and both of which are in violation of the EU’s deficit ceiling.
The real correlation is between taxes and the size of government. If you tax more, in the long run you don’t get lower deficits and more economic growth - you get the same deficits, larger government, and slower growth. Conservatives believe in small government, and therefore oppose tax increases.
This is why Republicans are so happy with Bush’s tax cuts. It’s not that they want the rich to make out like bandits at the expense of the poor - it’s that they recognize that cutting government’s revenue is going to put major pressure on the government to restrict spending. Note that the universal prescription drug idea has already been put on the back burner. Plenty of other spending bills will also be tabled now.
But what pisses off Republicans is that Bush hasn’t matched his tax cuts with spending cuts. In fact, he’s growing government faster than Clinton did. That’s the real source of the deficit - 87 billion in farm subsidies, 40 billion more to the Department of Education, major funding boosts to a dozen different agencies, 80 billion for Homeland security, and the list goes on.
A lot of Republicans are so happy with tax cuts that they are willing to ignore the irresponsible rise in government spending. If a government spends freely, the amount of taxing becomes less relevant. Lots of Republicans probably would be pleased to make out like bandits at the expense of the poor, and lots would not.
Has the size of the goverment shrunk under any of the recent presidents? Clinton was pretty conservative too, by Canadian standards. An analysis of European economics would also have to consider the role of reuniting Germany, government subsidies, the euro and pension problems – Britain and Sweden also have high taxes and do meet deficit ceilings – so what? To say the solution is to control spending is to ignore the economic factors leading to Grey’s recall movement. These are complicated issues and cannot be dumbed down this much.
I agree.
Except that this situation is non-sustainable. At some point, SOMETHING has to be done. You either raise taxes or cut spending. One suspicion many have is that Bush’s tax cuts are part of a two-pronged strategy - cutting taxes is always politically more palatable than cutting spending, so you cut taxes in your first term, let deficits rise, and then in your second term you become a ‘deficit hawk’ and use the high deficits as a reason to make drastic cuts in spending.
This theory gets blown out of the water by the fact that Bush is also raising spending irresponsibly, as you say. Something will have to give, and that will happen in the next term. The question will be whether he’ll give in to the left and raise taxes, or give in to the right and cut spending. Because he’s pissing them both off right now.
The size of government has NEVER shrunk under ANY modern president. That’s just not going to happen. The best you can hope for is to hold the size of goverment growth below the rate of economic growth, so that over time the economy outgrows government, reducing its size as a percentage of GDP.
Yep. One reason why I was never one of those knee-jerk Clinton bashers. Clinton wasn’t too bad, and in a lot of ways he was quite conservative. Aside from his (thankfully) failed attempt to socialize medicine, he did alright. He wasn’t a transformative figure, but as a steward of the economy the U.S. could have done a lot worse.
My point is that there is no correlation between high taxes and low deficits. Sure, you can find some countries with relatively high taxes and better deficit situations - Canada, for example. But Canada also illustrates my point about government expanding to consume all available resources - A decade ago, Canada was running a deficit of 8% of GDP, and had a total debt of more than 60% of GDP - both numbers MUCH higher than the U.S. would ever tolerate. But then Canada got its deficit under control, and has been running surpluses for the past few years. So what’s happening now? Are we happy that we’ve got surpluses and leave it at that? No. Government spending is now forecast to increase by about 11.5% next year! Three times the rate of economic growth. We are intentionally going back to deficit spending by growing the size of government, even though we already tax our population much more than the U.S. does.
And in the meantime, our debt is still massive. And yet, the government has chosen to spend our surplus on new programs rather than pay down the debt.
We are talking about taxes and deficits. To say that restricting the discussion to taxes and deficits is ‘simplistic’ because we’re not talking about California’s recall is bizarre to say the least. No one is saying that there aren’t other issues in governance. Why do we have to discuss them all at the same time? That’s a fomula for incoherence.
Since we agree on a great many things despite, I suspect, very different political beliefs, I’m going to see if a GQ can be salvaged from my opinions. I do hope Canada resists the urge to spend inappropriately. Since Martin is a shoo-in for next PM, this should be the case.
I love it when people say they are social liberals but economic conservatives. They think they can have the best of both worlds, while paying neither tab.
Daniel801: I would consider myself to be a social liberal but economic conservative, but not in the sense you are speaking of.
I am in favor of a government that meets needs at its smallest, most streamlined level of effeciency. However, unlike social conservatives, I don’t want the government sticking its nose into the rights and business of the people. I find that I agree with the ACLU on most issues (sexual orientation, separation of church and state, abortion) but don’t wish to see a greater level of growth in the “Nanny” state.
I guess it depends what you mean by ‘social liberal’. Most people I know who use the term mean to say that they oppose government intrusion into people’s private lives. There’s nothing about that that costs money, so it’s not incompatible to say you’re a social liberal and an economic conservative.
It’s only when you define ‘social liberal’ to mean that you support the vast panoply of liberal government programs that you get out of whack. And I agree that a lot of people seem to mean just that.
But in the classic sense, someone who is socially liberal but economically conservative would be more closely aligned to the Libertarian party than the Democratic party.
I’m glad you wrote that. I did not assume that you meant the classical definition. I agree that that more closely approaches libertarianism. Sad to say that you two are often the exception, though.
Libertarian, indeed. And here I am.
It’s certainly possible to be both econmically hawkish while being downright libertine socially. Simply cross one dash of ‘all men are created equal’ with a pinch of ‘don’t spend tomorrow’s money today’ and you’re there.
I have no faith at all that any US government, despite their promises, will make a serious attempt to shrink government. Hell, the entire concept of ‘baselining’ is designed around the expectation that government spending will always increase. So an increase isn’t actually an increase…in fact it can be a cut.
And that sucks.
And we salvage this as a GQ, so far. Ravenman and Sam Stone gave it some good thought. And Dr_Paprika, I’ll at least agree with you that the issues involved do get “dumbed down” in the general discourse.
But the discussion following daniel801’s comment catches my thoughts. If we remain trying to work with the left-to-right linear model of the political spectrum, we’re caught up with at least two competing primary definitions of both “liberal” and “conservative.”
I count myself as a conservative. Gay marriage is fine with me, in fact I’d encourage it. I’d like to see a lot of recreational drugs legalized, because I think legislation to enhance the efforts of our Colombian agriculture price supports group, the DEA, has resulted in a great erosion of civil liberties, measured against little gain. I can go postal on civil asset forfeiture. I’m atheist.
Generally, I’d like to see the government butt out of mine or anyone else’s personal life.
While the positions I’ve outlined might be considered “liberal,” I still self-identify better as conservative, and that’s driven primarily by economic considerations.
The “live and let live” idea of “liberal” is, unfortunately, not what liberal means politically or economically these days. It really means Big Brother’s got some new plans for you. The same can be said of the “other” definition of conservatism - Big Brother wants to know what you’re doing under the covers. I can’t endorse that.
You’re stuck with two choices. I think I pay very much in the way of taxes; I wish it was less.
Off to Great Debates.
DrMatrix - GQ Moderator
I’m not convinced liberal and conservative mean much of anything in either the US or Canada. Its been a long time since the Estates General. These words mean what you want them to.
I’m willing to pay for social programs, and don’t mind doing so with my tax dollars. Governments, unfortunately, to often throw money at problems with no rational or well-thought plan. I don’t want my money wasted. I want the government to account for all expenses, be able to monitor progress, and act like a responsible business. I don’t see this as a black and white thing – I’m not asking for maximum social programs nor minimal taxes.
I’m live or let live, think government has no business in my house or bedroom, but think government has the potential to do much good. So I don’t follow a party line. I do think there should be limits on freedom for the public good. In the States, I could not endorse either major party, both are slaves to corporate interests; neither can differentiate between capitalism and democracy. Government should be run like a business; it should minimize its actual involvement with business.
And history is full of examples where governments have done enormous evil. There is little, if any, “good” that the governement can do for it’s citizens that they can’t voluntarily do for themselves or for each other. The kind of libertarian/ismconservatism that I most identify with recognizes this and doesn’t try to force citizens to “do good.” Rather, it lets them choose the good they want to do and doesn’t get in their way in the process.
Government should be run like a business; it should minimize its actual involvement with business.
The only problem with government being run like a business is that businesses immediately start slashing ‘excess’ and ‘unneeded’ costs to try and stop a deficit. In the case of the Republican party, the first things to go are education, environment, and sometimes even research. Government should be run like a business to the extent that it keeps a tab on all it’s spendings, and spends responsibly. More like parents of a family than a business.
I do believe Sweden and Switzerland are both doing ok, and I think either one or both of them have pretty high income taxes (I always forget which). I’m all in favor of high taxes if it brings in benefits to the people. I don’t see what’s so wrong with socialized medicine, it can be a big help, but I think part of it is that people in the US tend to dislike the idea of ‘freeloaders’. If someone isn’t doing their part, then they shouldn’t get any benefits, which makes sense to an extent, but just seems like a bad way to do things to me. Maybe I’m just a bit idealistic 
, oh well, I can deal with that.
**What is it with conservatives that they treat taxes as some anathema (I hope I used the correct word) to be avoided at any cost? I know there is room for cutting, but some conservatives act as if they would rather live in a sewer than to raise one penny of taxes.
**
Taxation is taking something that belongs to you. It is a necessary evil, not a positive good. Therefore, taxes should only be used for the most vital of needs. People should not be taxed for projects that some think are a “good idea” or “compassionate”. People should only be taxed for things that are absoultely necessary and benefit everyone.
That’s my view and I guess it’s a conservative/libertarian view.
<i>This is why Republicans are so happy with Bush’s tax cuts. It’s not that they want the rich to make out like bandits at the expense of the poor - it’s that they recognize that cutting government’s revenue is going to put major pressure on the government to restrict spending. Note that the universal prescription drug idea has already been put on the back burner. Plenty of other spending bills will also be tabled now.</i>
What kind of plan is that? Run up all sorts of debt so that we can screw poor people more? This is just more proof that they really are taking our money for the purpose of taking our money.
I don’t see why we couldn’t just keep a surplus and not increase government spending. It seems everytime a conservitive gets into office they run the debt up, and now you’re telling me they do it on purpose?