I recall my first exposure to this idea was via L. Neal Smith, so I tried to coax a breakdown out of GPT. Keeping in mind it could be hallucinated (and not his actual position or sourced values and math), so minimally just for your entertainment…
Certainly! Here’s a more detailed breakdown of how L. Neil Smith might conceptualize the distribution of value:
12.5% Retained by the Individual: The portion of value that individuals actually keep for themselves after all deductions.
20% Income Taxes: The portion of value lost to federal, state, and local income taxes.
15% Social Security and Medicare Taxes: Contributions to social security and healthcare systems.
10% Sales Taxes: Taxes added to purchases of goods and services.
10% Property Taxes: Taxes on real estate and other property.
15% Regulatory Compliance Costs: Expenses related to meeting government regulations, such as environmental standards, labor laws, and safety requirements.
10% Corporate and Business Taxes: Taxes on business profits, which can indirectly affect individual income through reduced wages or higher prices.
7.5% Miscellaneous Fees and Other Taxes: Including tariffs, licensing fees, and other smaller taxes.
This breakdown illustrates how various forms of taxation and regulation can consume a large portion of the value generated by individual effort, aligning with Smith’s perspective on government intervention.
Do you have an example that uses real income? All those percentage are relative to something, and that something is the most important part.
What province are we talking about and what salary are we talking about.
To be honest though, this sounds like some pie in the sky libertarian point of view where they are suggesting multiple things that are repeatedly proved false. Some of which include:
trickle down economics, the idea that business will pass on additional profits to employees.
business will regulate themselves and ensure consumer safety.
business will happily provide the same infrastructure and services that we current fund through taxes for free or cheaper than it’s costs us right now to provide those services.
Which at that point I think you’re argument is correct, if we stopped spending effectively around 40% of our income (thats on the high-end) on funding public services, then over 75% of our income would need to go towards paying to get those same services back.
I recall my first exposure to this idea was via L. Neal Smith, so I tried to coax a breakdown out of GPT. Keeping in mind it could be hallucinated (and not his actual position or sourced values and math), so minimally just for your entertainment…
Certainly! Here’s a more detailed breakdown of how L. Neil Smith might conceptualize the distribution of value:
12.5% Retained by the Individual: The portion of value that individuals actually keep for themselves after all deductions.
20% Income Taxes: The portion of value lost to federal, state, and local income taxes.
15% Social Security and Medicare Taxes: Contributions to social security and healthcare systems.
10% Sales Taxes: Taxes added to purchases of goods and services.
10% Property Taxes: Taxes on real estate and other property.
15% Regulatory Compliance Costs: Expenses related to meeting government regulations, such as environmental standards, labor laws, and safety requirements.
10% Corporate and Business Taxes: Taxes on business profits, which can indirectly affect individual income through reduced wages or higher prices.
7.5% Miscellaneous Fees and Other Taxes: Including tariffs, licensing fees, and other smaller taxes.
This breakdown illustrates how various forms of taxation and regulation can consume a large portion of the value generated by individual effort, aligning with Smith’s perspective on government intervention.
Do you have an example that uses real income? All those percentage are relative to something, and that something is the most important part.
What province are we talking about and what salary are we talking about.
To be honest though, this sounds like some pie in the sky libertarian point of view where they are suggesting multiple things that are repeatedly proved false. Some of which include:
Which at that point I think you’re argument is correct, if we stopped spending effectively around 40% of our income (thats on the high-end) on funding public services, then over 75% of our income would need to go towards paying to get those same services back.