i don't see how that relates to the point you just quoted, but regardless, i don't necessarily agree that taxes as they currently are are ideal, though they are necessary as a form of income redistribution. do we redistribute too much or too little? i'm not sure, if i had to say, i'd say slightly too much. but i do believe that everyone should have the opportunity of education, the security of knowing they can get into a hospital to be treated if they are sick and to know that in their old age, even if it is a small amount, the gov. will assist them with the cost of living.
no they certainly are not. do I think that the poor should have free access to healthcare and education? absolutely. but should said access be funded through a system of racketeering and extortion? absolutely not.
now i realize you would say 'well durr gov. will charge for other services to compensate for these things' but i'm quite sure gov. run services wouldn't turn a high enough profit, run efficiently enough to fund all these things.
well then you're wrong. let's look at how "unprofitable" state owned enterprises really are.
http://blogs.worldbank.org/eastasiapacific/state-owned-enterprises-in-china-how-profitable-are-they
"At the outset, however, it is useful to look at the big picture, which is shown in figure 1. Due to data availability constraints, the analysis here is focused on industrial enterprises, using the
industrial enterprise survey dataset constructed by the National Statistical Bureau of China (NBS). [Enterprises covered by this dataset in all produce almost 40 percent of GDP.] As what is shown in figure 1,
at least before the subprime crisis, the profitability of industrial SOEs in China as a whole was largely in line with that of non-SOEs, only 1-2 percentage points lower in terms of return on assets (ROA). Other similar profitability indicators show roughly the same picture. However, the gap has quickly widened since the global economic crisis started to hit China in 2008.
Although the industrial SOEs as a whole show reasonable performance relative to non-SOEs, there is substantial variety on the sectorial level. SOEs in all control 44 percent of total assets in industry, but across different industrial sectors this share varies significantly. Moreover,
there is a positive correlation between the performance of SOEs and their shares in individual sectors—i.e., sectors with bigger SOE shares generally see higher profitability of SOEs within—
consistent with the conventional wisdom that SOEs profit from their monopoly powers."
"
2. Profitability of SOEs is positively correlated with the share of SOEs in sectors. Such correlation is insignificant among non-SOEs."
"Most SOE profits are contributed by sectors highly monopolized by the state while sectors dominated by non-SOEs are major sources of non-SOE profits."
your assertion that SOEs can't turn a high enough profit to fund their programs is completely bogus. the most you can say about them is that they are inefficient.
apart from the fact that large amounts of state run enterprises such as the RTA would require massive reinvestment of profit on expansion of new roads
there are these things called debt financing and equity financing you might wanna look them up someday, you know they're how companies and even governments finance a majority of their projects?
what about the ageing population? i can't remember the exact figure in the smh this morning, but there is NO WAY we could afford to finance this spike in pensioners without tax (albeit the carbon tax, although i disagree with it, as previously mentioned the super-profits tax was more sound).
what about them? if we could not fund it then don't. spending beyond its means was what led the U.S government into this mess in the first place. it's not another person's responsibility to fund your retirement for you. pay for your own fucking pension with your own fucking money. when you can't afford something do you fund it by robbing other people at gun point?
at this point in time i see no other way in which society could efficiently work as it is without tax.
the robber can't see how he could work "efficiently" without coercion either but is that a justification for coercion?
i don't know. do you know any examples of gov run agencies or corporations that directly run against private sector competition and do 'well'?
"Now, we can answer the question asked before:
How profitable are Chinese SOEs? For SOEs in the industry, we have a clear answer. On average,
the profitability of the overall industrial SOEs is roughly comparable to their non-SOEs peers. However, most of the SOE profits are contributed by highly state-monopolized sectors, in which SOEs record respectable rate of return.
Profitability of SOEs in sectors with less or little state domination is generally much poorer."
given that SOEs aren't driven by the profit motive I'd define "well" as breaking even.
