[Meslocusist]

Well, as for the first few points- about advertising, and inefficiency in charities, I suggested that the taxes be based not on how much money you pay to the charities, but how much money they pay towards their purposes, in terms of cents on the dollar.

I wonder- if you propose those problems with the charities, what of income taxes as they currently stand?

[Prosthetic Conscience]

one that is 20% efficient (for example, the US government, at a guess)

Here we have a problem. You are guessing that the US government is inefficient. You have no idea whatsoever. Your political prejudices make you think that the US government is wildly inefficient in everything it does.

What have you based this '20%' figure on? If you'd bothered actually looking, you'd find that the US Social Security program is 99% efficient:

In 2008, administrative expenses were about $5.7 billion, or less than 1 percent of all benefits paid. See Trust Fund Data for more financial information on the trust funds.

What is the cost to administer the Social Security program?

Your proposal of a system in which government would have to monitor the charitable giving of every taxpayer sounds quite inefficient itself. And the basic concept of your system is that 'people must give a certain amount, but where it goes is less important'. Wouldn't it be more efficient to design a system in which you identify the need, and then only enforce the financing of that minimum amount - ie what we do now?

[Meslocusist]

Here we have a problem. You are guessing that the US government is inefficient. You have no idea whatsoever. Your political prejudices make you think that the US government is wildly inefficient in everything it does.

I thought I made it amply clear that I was guessing. Perhaps not. I like to make my posts neutrally worded, although it seems that in this case I failed to do so. And in fact, I'm an anarchist. However, I must say that I am by all rights far more sympathetic to the Democratic/Liberal platform than the Republican/Conservative one.

What have you based this '20%' figure on? If you'd bothered actually looking, you'd find that the US Social Security program is 99% efficient:

"In 2008, administrative expenses were about $5.7 billion, or less than 1 percent of all benefits paid. See Trust Fund Data for more financial information on the trust funds.

What is the cost to administer the Social Security program?"

Once again, I thought I made it clear: It was 100% a guess based on an impression of government inefficiency.

Your proposal of a system in which government would have to monitor the charitable giving of every taxpayer sounds quite inefficient itself. And the basic concept of your system is that 'people must give a certain amount, but where it goes is less important'. Wouldn't it be more efficient to design a system in which you identify the need, and then only enforce the financing of that minimum amount - ie what we do now?

The government already monitors charities to some extent-after all, donations are already tax deductible.

If social security is so efficient, why don't private companies emulate it in order to match the efficiency?

[Prosthetic Conscience]

If social security is so efficient, why don't private companies emulate it in order to match the efficiency?

Because governments have advantages in not having to market their pension provision. It's compulsory. Government spending tends to be efficient; private spending is better at being innovative. For something you really want to be secure, like your retirement income, the government approach is very good.

[Meslocusist]

Any other opinions on that one- is the government really that efficient?

I also think that there is an important cost that was excluded in that one: The IRS. In 2006, the IRS collected 2.2 trillion dollars worth of tax money after tax decuctions etc. Their budget was 11.5 billion in 2009, so I guess that isn't a major inefficiency.

Well, that is fascinating. Where do all those accusations of government inefficiency come from again?

[Dave]

Things like $75 billion being unaccounted for the Pentagon's budget.

[grassroots1]

Whether 'government' is inefficient is a pretty ridiculous conversation to have because it depends on the specific government, program, or policy. And I'd say $75 billion missing is more evidence of corruption than it is of inefficiency.

[Order]

Things like $75 billion being unaccounted for the Pentagon's budget.

An interesting point. While libertarians think having the state run social welfare programmes would threaten personal rights and lead to a massive waste of money they usually seem quite happy having the state run a a massive group of heavily armed people which are, of course, not a threat to anything and all in all a great investment.

[Dr House]

Libertarians are some of the loudest anti-militarist advocates out there.

[Order]

Libertarians are some of the loudest anti-militarist advocates out there.

Strangely enough not on this forum. Also, while I agree that anti-militarism should logically be part of the libertarian ideology many American libertarians are in fact "Small State plus Huge Army" libertarians. An American quirk I suppose.

[TropicalK]

We've been through this so many times. Libertarians talking about social liberties and military size is less common because it is soo boring. Practically everyone wants a smaller military.

[Dr House]

Strangely enough not on this forum

Militarists are rare here. Given that this is a debate forum, viewpoints are most often voiced in opposition to other people's view points.

Check out Lewrockwell.com sometime.

[grassroots1]

See what you've started, Dave?

Order, you misquoted that statement to me, by the way.

[Order]

@grassroots
I apologise. Can't edit it anymore though.

[Zerogouki]

Although Social Security and the IRS are efficient, there are some areas of government that are far less so. Public schools, for example, cost 3-5 times as much per student per year as private ones. The public transit system where I live gets 10% of its funding from fares and the other 90% from taxes. And then there are Medicare and Medicaid, the two biggest leeches on the Federal payroll...