Taxes and Self-Interest

[Chris.S]

I may be irrationally biased as a recipient of nationally funded health care (Canadian resident), but is it possible that paying taxes for things like health care, education and social assistance be good for my self-interest?

Even if I've never had a major hospital visit, there's always a chance that it could happen, and I would possibly need some sort of major procedure. Now is it better for me to pay a little bit in taxes to a common pool, or take a major loan and go into huge debt? Can this be expanded to include if my friends or family need expensive medical procedures - I value their life, so I think paying taxes for health care is good?

Now can it also be expanded to include the population with the idea that most men are like me and have similar values; if I met them it's likely we'd be friends; and they are valuable to me in that we can trade for mutual benefit - and so paying taxes would be good?

Or could all the money I pay in taxes go to a private insurance company or HMO (not sure if HMO is correct, I don't know much about private medical companies/hospitals). If there are many of these companies around in a free capitalist society, would the price and quality of medical procedures go up or down compared to a federal system, seeing as doctors deserve very good compensation? Or wouldn't the overall costs of providing medical care stay similar to a government-run system?

Now can the above be applied to public education and social assistance?

The reason I ask is because I'm still trying to fit my head around these 3 topics in relation to Objectivism. I've been the recipient of major surgeries without which I'd be dead; publicly educated and receiving government loans for university; and as a child my mother received social assistance for a short while until she found a job with the military. Wouldn't denouncing taxation for these be hypocritical since each has been to the good of my life?

Can there ever be "voluntary taxation", or is that a contradiction in terms?

Edited January 15, 2009 by Chris.S

[Zip]

Chris, nice to see another Canadian here.

My question is this, can you name a single government plan that has become cheaper with time?

Who knows Chris maybe if we actually paid (cash or credit) into the government run plans then it might but as it is all of your "payments" are nothing more than a liars paper transaction. There isn't some pile of cash sitting in a government bank marked Chris.S' healthcare fund, but there would be if you did it yourself, and if you were smart about it you might possibly get to the point where you no longer needed to pay into it. That's never going to happen with a government plan.

[Chris.S]

Chris, nice to see another Canadian here.

My question is this, can you name a single government plan that has become cheaper with time?

Who knows Chris maybe if we actually paid (cash or credit) into the government run plans then it might but as it is all of your "payments" are nothing more than a liars paper transaction. There isn't some pile of cash sitting in a government bank marked Chris.S' healthcare fund, but there would be if you did it yourself, and if you were smart about it you might possibly get to the point where you no longer needed to pay into it. That's never going to happen with a government plan.

Actually, I can't name one (not that I know a whole lot of 'em). But neither can I name private things that get cheaper over time - cable, internet, phones, groceries, gas (cheaper now, but over time it gets more expensive), all go up. I'm guessing that's the nature of the economy, but I would think in a truly free market, services and commodities would get cheaper over time to a minimum point. Somewhat like Galt's electricity engine driving the cost of electricity down to pennies. There is something I want to add about the economy and rising prices, but I'll start a new thread.

Actually, what's kinda funny is that I haven't paid taxes other than gst/pst in 5 years. I'm going to this year so the government can't put me in jail, and I'm free to marry my Muslim girlfriend (non-practicing). And I'm not sure but I think I just shot my argument in the foot right there.

[Jake_Ellison]

The argument can be made that government programs are generally wasteful, inferior to private ones in every regard etc.

So the argument can be made that Canadians are paying a big price for their "free" or "cheap" socialized healthcare by not getting the quality one would get in the US for instance. (and there are waiting lists for surgery, huge patient loads/physician etc. both in Canada and in the UK, which Americans would be horrified to experience)

But let's forget about that, and let's assume that there's not a difference in quality. Let's assume that these programs are every bit as well organized, you'll get the same value for the same money, as are private companies:

The big question now is this: Where does the money come from for those people's heathcare who are getting a good deal out of this, and who are paying less for healthcare than they would pay to a private company?

Does the government magically create that healthcare they don't have to pay for, or does the money for it come from some other source?

The answer: the source for every penny you gain by receiving heathcare from the Canadian government comes from someone who payed that money but never received anything in return. Why did he pay it? Because there's a gun pointed at his head, and if he doesn't, he is either going to prison or the trigger is pulled and he is murdered.

Obviously, few get murdered, because once the Canadian Police shows up at their door step, with an arrest warrant for tax-evasion, guns in hand, they simply allow themselves to be cuffed and escorted to jail. Murder is however always a possibility.

So here's the real price you are paying for the "free" or "cheap" healthcare you might receive from your government: you, by happily profiting from the force, guns and murder I mentioned above, are giving up the moral expectation that you have the right to not be threatened, have a gun pointed at you or murdered.

If any of those thing were to happen to you, your life would be summed up like this: He lived by force and guns, and he died by force and guns. What did he expect? To live by guns and lead a happy life, undisturbed by other, even bigger brutes? Then he was an imbecile on top of it.

On the other hand, if you instead of going about life expecting the government to help you out, create your own chances, make your own money, and make it a point never to receive from anyone more than you've put in in the past, well then my friend you can call yourself a proud, moral man. You have no reason to be unhappy or confused, to feel guilty or insecure, you can be confident that you're a good man, and every second of your life was worth living.

[DavidOdden]

I may be irrationally biased as a recipient of nationally funded health care (Canadian resident), but is it possible that paying taxes for things like health care, education and social assistance be good for my self-interest?

The way questions are phrased really makes a huge difference. By asking whether it is "good for your self-interest", you are dropping context, leaving out the alternatives. The proper question is, what is best for your self-interest. If you reframe the question as what is in your best interest, the answer is clearly that paying taxes for things like health care, education and general socialism is not in your best interest. Thus it does not matter if you can imagine some positive benefit, since the integrated result is worse for you that a free market.

[Chris.S]

The way questions are phrased really makes a huge difference. By asking whether it is "good for your self-interest", you are dropping context, leaving out the alternatives. The proper question is, what is best for your self-interest. If you reframe the question as what is in your best interest, the answer is clearly that paying taxes for things like health care, education and general socialism is not in your best interest. Thus it does not matter if you can imagine some positive benefit, since the integrated result is worse for you that a free market.

These are the replies I was expecting, and the ones I came up with myself when trying to reason this out. I guess my moral dilemma was trying to integrate those 3 things into objectivist values, and the reason I posted was because I couldn't (because it's impossible).

However, does being moral mean I should totally reject the entire system? I still have to pay taxes if I reject it. And then who's at the lesser advantage? Me. So it kind of seems like I should continue to pay taxes and receive the benefits therein until I can afford to move to someplace that doesn't tax it's people. Is there even such a place anywhere? Rand lived in the US and yet continued to pay taxes for the random social services did she not?

As for the federal health care system efficiency here in Ontario, I've not had a long wait time for anything serious. So from my perspective it seems pretty efficient (aside from the whole gun-to-my-head thing )

[DavidOdden]

However, does being moral mean I should totally reject the entire system? I still have to pay taxes if I reject it.

By "reject", do you mean "refuse to receive said benefits"? If so, then no you should not. You should reject the system in the sense othat you should morally condemn it, most certainly not work to perpetuate it, and even work to end it. But since it is a fact that you are being robbed, why should you further punish yourself by not at least providing those services that your money is paying for? There is no valid moral principle "never receive a benefit from those who rob you".

[Chris.S]

By "reject", do you mean "refuse to receive said benefits"? If so, then no you should not. You should reject the system in the sense othat you should morally condemn it, most certainly not work to perpetuate it, and even work to end it. But since it is a fact that you are being robbed, why should you further punish yourself by not at least providing those services that your money is paying for? There is no valid moral principle "never receive a benefit from those who rob you".

Yes, I did mean "reject" in that way, but then said that by rejecting it like that I'm doubly screwing myself. I think we're at the same conclusion, but you're far more eloquent.

[prosperity]

I may be irrationally biased as a recipient of nationally funded health care (Canadian resident), but is it possible that paying taxes for things like health care, education and social assistance be good for my self-interest?

Even if I've never had a major hospital visit, there's always a chance that it could happen, and I would possibly need some sort of major procedure. Now is it better for me to pay a little bit in taxes to a common pool, or take a major loan and go into huge debt? Can this be expanded to include if my friends or family need expensive medical procedures - I value their life, so I think paying taxes for health care is good?

Now can it also be expanded to include the population with the idea that most men are like me and have similar values; if I met them it's likely we'd be friends; and they are valuable to me in that we can trade for mutual benefit - and so paying taxes would be good?

Or could all the money I pay in taxes go to a private insurance company or HMO (not sure if HMO is correct, I don't know much about private medical companies/hospitals). If there are many of these companies around in a free capitalist society, would the price and quality of medical procedures go up or down compared to a federal system, seeing as doctors deserve very good compensation? Or wouldn't the overall costs of providing medical care stay similar to a government-run system?

Now can the above be applied to public education and social assistance?

The reason I ask is because I'm still trying to fit my head around these 3 topics in relation to Objectivism. I've been the recipient of major surgeries without which I'd be dead; publicly educated and receiving government loans for university; and as a child my mother received social assistance for a short while until she found a job with the military. Wouldn't denouncing taxation for these be hypocritical since each has been to the good of my life?

Can there ever be "voluntary taxation", or is that a contradiction in terms?

Just as an aside, in America, there used to be a time when we didn't have social programs like Medicaid and Medicare to take care of the poor and the elderly. The system worked, and health care was affordable. You have to realize that insurance was never designed to cover everything from a box of kleenex to heart surgery. It was meant to cover what would be considered a catastrophic financial crisis due to medical care for families.

Since your health is, for the most part, in your control, there are some things which are simply not insurable. This doesn't stop the Government from trying though.

...the best example of what would happen in the health care industry at large if it was "de-socialized" is the LASIK eye surgery example. Prices have gone from many thousands of dollars to - locally here anyway - a few hundred dollars per eye...and the technology is FAR superior to what was available just several years ago.