I don't know... This may be true in America, but with globalization, other countries are competing with each other to lower tax rates. Capital and businesses already flow to places with less socialism. How long until the same goes for people too? How long before more highly-skilled Americans emigrate to, say, Hong Kong?

That is why the biggest event of the last 15 years is the stunning defeat of socialism.

More here on how leftism is contrary to economic success and meritocracy, with hard data as proof.

The same (TaxEasters vs TaxPayers) absolutely applies in Europe only more so. In most of Europe the number of adults who are retured on a state pension, claiming social security or employed by the state is greater then the number of adults who are employed in the private sector or retired on more than the state pension.

In the UK I believe that this only applies if if you strip out London (or some portion of the SE of England), but it definitely applies without modification in almost all continental European nations.

Looks like we'll have reasons to fear the tyranny of the majority soon.

When I was sixteen I was thinking about this and wondered what would happen when the majority of the nation are living off taxes. I thought it would destroy democracy. Ever since then, I've felt that the trends in politics in both parties (the Democrats more so than the Republicans, but still both) has been to buy votes with tax revenues, even when we're in a deficit. That includes pork barrel spending, earmarks (as evidenced by the efforts being made to hide them) and all entitlement programs. When we think somebody else is paying the tab we all tend to eat hardy. There is so much waste and fraud in Medicare and Medicaid, it's no wonder they are going bankrupt.

In every case, there are elements in the legislation that practically invite fraud, including laws that make it easier to register to vote when there are so many falsified IDs available to non-citizens.

I once thought of myself as mostly a libertarian, but now "republican" that form of government which allows representative government to make sensible laws fits me better. Too much emphasis on minority "rights," and the creative arguments which have been adopted by the courts have made liberty an excuse for denying the majority to create the kind of society that they feel comfortable living in. Now the assumpion is that the courts make the laws and the taxpayers should shut up or be held in contempt.

All interesting thoughts, about government "tax eaters" vs. taxpayers. I'm currently a "tax eater" as an employee of the Federal government, and the best way I can categorize the organization I work for is by its lack of urgency, as opposed to the private consulting firm I formerly worked for.

That has been a constant finding for me, in other government employment during my career. But I had an interesting conversation with a Boston (MA) cabbie a few weeks ago. I happened to mention that I'd "gone over to the dark side" by joining the Federal government. That puzzled him. For him, civil servants were heroes, and private enterprisers were villians. Perhaps that attitude accounts for Massachusetts' loss of business and relatively high unemployment rate?

Twok:

You are probably correct that the same situation (growing percentage of "tax eaters" and a shrinking percentage of "tax payers") applies to the European population. However, I'm not at all covinced that the situation in Europe is, or will be worse, than in America. The main reason is that what really matters is not so much the percentages of the population or even the percentage of GNP going to "tax eaters", but rather what form it takes. This is a simplistic example but, lets say 30% of the US GNP goes to "tax eaters" in the form of paying to incarcerate, feed, and provide medical care for our enormous prison population. Now, let's say that 50% of Europe's GNP goes to "tax eaters" in the form of subsidizing university tuition for students and research grants and salaries for professors in the hard sciences and engineering disciplines. It's very plausible that the result of Europe's 50% is a more educated population with a growing GNP and a higher median per capita income that allows them to sustain the 50% tax grab. Now, let's say the result of our 30% is simply that we keep a whole lot of predators behind bars, we are not getting the same "payoff" as Europe in terms of economic growth. Now, I am not suggesting that we let people out of prison to subsidize university education. Each country/region has to deal with certain social realities. Nonetheless, most people would rather make say $100,000 and pay 50% of it in taxes than make $60,000 and pay 30% in taxes. I realize my example is simple and may not even accurately reflect the broad ways the two areas spend their taxes. And that high tax rates can discourage productive labor and actually result in lower absolute tax revenue. Even so, the fact remains that how tax money gets spent can be far more important than what percentage of money goes to taxes. And in my admittedly personal experience, Europe gets a much better result from it's higher taxes. A better physical infrastructure, a better overall public school system, better medical care for most people etc.

Reminds me of "The Time Machine" by HG Wells, with Tax eaters as Eloi and Tax payers as Morlocks... Government workers better start reading some classic sci-fi because the Eloi didn't fare very well.

or, to quote some french guy “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money”

Eric, you write:

"It's not as if working for the government is like working for a religious order."

On the contrary, it IS like working for a religious order-- specifically, the Order of St. Frederick Taylor, as propagated by perhaps his most ardent disciple, Herbert Croly.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/30464.html

The results of the Progessive "experiment" have been so awful that to persist in it after 1970 REQUIRES religious belief.

(Sorry for the failure to use HTML tags-- I don't know that bit of arcana.)

I am a psychiatric social worker for the State of NH, and have been in similar positions for 30 years. You are exactly on target. Social workers (and psychologists, and public guardians, etc) believe that what they do is morally superior. They are envious that other professions make more money and readily believe any tale of corruption about people in other fields - except perhaps journalists.

There are, certainly, numerous exceptions. But that is the general trend.

I've thought for a while that there needs to be another box on the W-2 form. It would show how much of the gross pay came from tax receipts. Including the percentage of a private company's sale revenue is from government contracts.

If that box was greater than your tax paid then you would not be qualified to vote in Federal elections for the House of Representatives where all the spending and tax bills must start.

Would make for a much different House I bet

This is a flaw in universal suffrage. That the governing classes can vote to perpetuate their livings is corruption.

The founders knew this, and they considered voting a privilege--hardly a right on the level of life, liberty, or property.

No representation without taxation.

Yet I have seen a growing tendency in some circles to see tax eaters (of all varieties) as morally better than the people whose taxes pay them.

It is no coincidence that as religion is returning to its pre-Enlightenment, untamed form in the world, that social attitudes should begin to manifest decidedly medieval patterns again. The merchants and the serfs were always looked down upon by the nobles and clergy -- but who was paying the bills?

This is a flaw in universal suffrage.

No, it is a flaw in democracy. Restricting suffrage would only reduce the number of tyrants, not their power.

Neil S. is dead-on to cite the Reason essay pointing the finger, at Herbert Croly and Progressivism, the man and movement that heralded the beginning of the Left's intellectual co-opting of American liberalism -- starting with the substitution of democracy for freedom.

There is a popular fiction that Robin Hood robbed from the rich and gave to the poor. What he did was far more important. He robbed from the tax collectors and gave to the productive.