Two Questions; More taxes needed? Do we choose work or the dole?

A friend recently asked my opinion on two questions; (1) whether we should raise taxes and if so, on whom, and (2) given a clear choice, how many of us would choose to be on the dole as opposed to working for our income.

First, let's tackle the tax question. As a general guideline, I'd propose what can be referred to as the 90/10 rule. If we always followed its guidance, we would have, if not an entirely appropriate tax policy, at least a sensible one.

In essence the rule can be stated as follows; if the majority of the people vote to have 90% of the population pay more taxes in a compassionate effort to assist the assumed 10% of the people who really need help, then let's do it. On the other hand, even if 90% of the people would be willing to vote to raise taxes on the remaining 10% of the people in order to spread entitlement benefits throughout the society, then let's not do it.

In other words, "We the People" should have the government that we are willing to pay for with our own money.

Now for the second question; Would most of us choose the dole or work, given a well and clearly explained choice? Choosing the dole or work approach is a false choice in the end. That's because nobody would agree to work and provide the free lunches for those who chose the free lunch route. In other words, we can't all be on the dole and prosper.

When comparing socialism and capitalism, Churchill described the situation thusly, "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

Accordingly, my bet is that pursuant to the be careful what you wish for school of thought, a realistically communicated choice between work and dole would result in the vast majority of our fellow citizens opting for the work route.

But even if I'm wrong and the voters would opt for the dole instead of work, we self chosen workers would simply withdraw from such a socialistic society in which "we" wouldn't fit and clearly wouldn't belong. In sum, if nobody works hard, then nobody lives on easy street with free lunches being served. It's as simple as that.

Currently we rightfully don't trust our elected officials to act routinely in the best interests of our larger society. And that's a genuine problem which needs to be faced directly and continuously until it's solved by "We the People" taking the reins.

In fact, there are far too many factions or special interests which seek and secure particular governmental favors, even though these interests are often contrary to society's interests as a whole, and don't "promote the general Welfare", to cite the Constitution.

For a relevant and still pertinent discussion of the role of special interests or factions and their long term historical influence on government, please refer to James Madison's Federalist paper #10 from 1787 which reads in part as follows, "But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. . . . The regulation of these varying and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government."

And when you finish that one, please go to Madison's Federalist paper #51 which points out that men aren't angels, whether the men involved be those men then being governed or those then doing the governing. In sum, government needs to be restricted to having very few powers over the people.

Finally, here's a quote worth remembering from the French anti-socialist Frederic Bastiat. Circa 1850 Bastiat said this of how government functions "The state is that great fiction by which everybody tries to live at the expense of everyone else."

That's the French way. But it never has been and never shall it be the American way. At least that's way I see things.

Thanks. Bob.