Nothing that the government provides is actually 'free'.
-
Voted "true" — but my steelman argument for "false" would be that some services could reasonably be expected to reduce the government's fiscal obligations elsewhere well beyond their upfront cost, and I do find that fairly convincing
So... some taxes are OK as forced investments to avoid paying higher taxes in the future?
-
-
I mean, I'm not against taxation in principle even when there's not a clear calculable **financial** return on investment — gov can reduce its obligations by reducing the scope of its responsibilities to its citizenry, but I like having at least *some* social welfare
-
Why does it increase the likelihood that the funds are efficiently allocated for social welfare if the money is first forcefully expropriated from private earners, and then allocated by unelected bureaucrats with no skin in the game and strong principal-agent problems?
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.