As far as I know, taxpayers in both the United States and the United Kingdom pay about the same portion of domestic national product (within a percentage point or two) for health services, roughly seven percent of national income. US government payments fund emergency room care that is not paid for privately or by charity, Medicare, Medicaid, current military and veterans' care, and the like. UK government payments fund most health provision in the country. People in the US also pay about an equivalent amount outside of taxes for health services. People in the UK do not.
What do you think of these US and UK payments?
A person who uses an `illness' metaphor for tax payments speaks of `tax relief', a term that uses the same language as that used by people who talk of a medicine to relieve an upset stomach. The question is whether you figure that tax relief is more important than illness relief when hospitals run out of private and charity funds and therefore cannot offer their services in emergency rooms?
On the other hand, a person who uses a `country club' metaphor for tax payments speaks of taxes as the `dues' necessary to pay for the amenities of a civilized society. The question is whether you figure that dues payments are more important than alternative private uses for the payments?
Obviously, in the summer of 2004, regardless of metaphor, this question is not topical. The US is living under a `borrow and spend' administration who are borrowing now and putting tax payments onto the future. Whether you describe taxes as the metaphorical equivalent of an illness or of dues to a country club, an American is going to pay them, but not right now.
But presupposing that old fashioned Republicans or new Democrats come into power in the US, what do you think of current governance?
In topical terms, the question revolves around whether the mechanism used to spend money borrowed by a government `crowds out private investment less' than alternative forms of government spending or whether the governance mechanism provides a `better return on investment'?
Both metaphors presume that borrowed money is spent by the government. The first metaphor presumes there is a more or less fixed pot of money available for borrowing and that either the government or private parties can borrow from it. The metaphor also suggests that private parties are more likely to invest wisely than a government since those who are `crowded out' tend to be losers. Over all, the metaphor tells us that government spending which involves less borrowing is better than spending that involves more.
The second metaphor does not suggest a zero-sum game or bring up a `container' metaphor, but presumes that a government can invest more wisely than private parties.
With either metaphor, my question is whether the government spending that is occurring `crowds out private investment less' than alternatives or provides a `better return on investment' than alternatives?
To use yet another metaphor, a gun metaphor, is the UK or the US getting `more bang for its buck'?
Return to: Notions
Or return to: Rattlesnake Home Page