SARS Exceeds Revenue Target

[BTTB]

Think of it this way, Government has exceeded it's revenue target on a budget it created with certain goals in mind, so one can deduce that it has more than enough finances to implement this budget, but will delivery match the budget or exceed it.
Here lies the dilemma that Trevor Manuel eluded to recently in the media that for some time now Government was financed properly, but service delivery did not match the financing. Who better to comment here than Trevor himself as the longest standing Minister of Finance.

Drawing a parallel example, would a Company with more than enough working capital continue to under-deliver year after year as our Government has done. In the real world the CEO and Management would be fired by its' shareholders and replaced with people who can implement the budget.
In South Africa we as the citizens are the shareholders of Government and we can replace the CEO and Management by placing our X at the Voting Station next to the team you think can produce the goods. No creed or colour should determine your voting choice, just simply place your X next to the team you think can deliver services based on the money we give to Government in the form of our hard earned taxes.

 

[Hard Rain]

@ Hard Rain. I think there's a damn good reason for governments and taxation. Most government services cannot be left to the profit driven private sector to provide. Governments can operate at a loss by running deficits but private businesses can't do the same without going insolvent. In any case the only incentive for pvt business is profit

How exactly is it a good thing that governments can run huge debt deficits? What, you really believe they're "too big to fail"? Wait for what's beginning to happen in Europe and the US to see where this leads.

Also, you can discount the profit motive from private business, but you have not discounted private charity.

 

[Hard Rain]

Why do you think Switzerland is as wealthy as they are? Who do you think is storing all the ill gotten gains of criminals all over the world (criminals in government and business alike)? Fortunately Governments are wising up to Switzerland and you can expect their status to change and they being forced to open up details of all the waelth being hidden there.

If the Swiss lose their private and secret banking privileges from coercive means another place will offer up the same deal. Where there is sufficient demand for something there will be supply for it, something Statists can't seem to get through their skulls as they try to regulate the world.

But explain also why there is no nation on earth that complies with your vision? if it so great why does it not exist?

There are plenty of reasons for the this, the biggest one I believe is because of the mythology of the State. Until very recently people would be lucky to live for half a century. Living such short lives never gave people the opportunity to actually observe that, after decades of promises and elections, things never actually turned out the way they expected, for themselves, or for two or three generations of their kids.

I believe with the advances in life expectancy people's time preferences will become lower, they will seek to invest the fruits of their labours more for successive generations of offspring whom they will actually live to see. From this they will realize that the best way for this to work is embrace private property and voluntary exchange and to eschew the cold lies of the thieving State.

"State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it lies; and this lie slips from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people." Everything in it is false; it bites with stolen teeth, and bites often." - Friedrich Nietzsche

 

[Hard Rain]

There are task teams looking at the associations but is very difficult. The taxi industry is a good example of what you get when private business is not regulated properly. The kind of stuff Hard Rain dreams about.

Excuse me, the taxi cartels operate with explicit support of the State. They rent-seek the government for privileges with union agitation and strikes. They also create barriers-to-entry for potential competition by using the government to impose excessive and restrictive licensing and regulation. The cartels would not be able to survive were it not for friends in the government.

 

[MrGray]

Governments DO NOT raise taxes to pay for services. No government truly needs to do that as they have the resources and means to self-finance almost all services, should they wish to, as they are essentially the largest company in any economy. Heck if they wanted to they could just print money. If you truly start delving into the financial system of FIAT currency and fractional reserve banking, the real truth about taxation is apparent; taxation is purely a mechanism to maintain the value of the currency that a government prints, a way to make money a rarer commodity, and thus sustain it's value. Think about it... any government can create money out of fresh air, so why charge citizens for services, other than to make that money have value.

 

[Vrotappel]

Excuse me, the taxi cartels operate with explicit support of the State. They rent-seek the government for privileges with union agitation and strikes. They also create barriers-to-entry for potential competition by using the government to impose excessive and restrictive licensing and regulation. The cartels would not be able to survive were it not for friends in the government.

Barriers to entry. mmm. Wonder how that will work when there is no state to regulate private business. Company X sets up shop in A. It can charge what it wants to charge because their is no competition. Co. B steps up to the plate. It comes in lower than Co. A. Dilemma for A but no real problem. It uses its security provider Co. X to take out Co. B and charges even more because it can. There is no Government, no Police no defense force, who is going to stop them?

See where I am going with this?

That's why I mentioned Telkom originally. Something like Telkom (a national telecoms provider) will never be possible where there is no Government. They'll never be able to roll out services to any significant customer base without sabotage and theft.

Obviously where there is no Government there will also not be any law. Or the company with the strongest security provider will be making up the law as they go along.

 

[Hard Rain]

Barriers to entry. mmm. Wonder how that will work when there is no state to regulate private business. Company X sets up shop in A. It can charge what it wants to charge because their is no competition. Co. B steps up to the plate. It comes in lower than Co. A. Dilemma for A but no real problem. It uses its security provider Co. X to take out Co. B and charges even more because it can. There is no Government, no Police no defense force, who is going to stop them?

That bold statement is ludicrous. Even if a firm is the dominant market provider it can only charge as much as consumers are willing to pay. Businesses will always prefer some sales to none and some profits to none, hence why prices are always driven down on the margin because of competition.

In any case, If Company A wishes to run its business the way the mafia runs a protection racket then it is going to have to deal with the risk and consequences of doing so- like most people not wanting to have anything to do with Company A or violently resisting it. And again, why does this analogy necessitate the State having a monopoly for protection and arbitration? Company B can hire protection, raise a fuss, let people know what's happening, seek the help of third-party arbitration, allow consumers to choose not to patronize company A or even to directly support Company B. In the Statist world it's simply a race to who can co-opt and manipulate the force of government first.

That's why I mentioned Telkom originally. Something like Telkom (a national telecoms provider) will never be possible where there is no Government. They'll never be able to roll out services to any significant customer base without sabotage and theft.

And again I am blown away by how you cite Telkom as a positive example of State fascism. Leaving aside the fact that wired communication is fast becoming redundant, you don't think that there are competing telecommunications providers all over the world? Why is the supply of phone lines and internet service different to any other good or service in the market that the government inexplicably needs to enforce a coercive monopoly?

There will always be the risk of sabotage and theft, it's happened and is happening right now under the State monopoly. Entrepreneurs with competing interests are far more capable of mitigating and hedging these risks because they have to be efficient and cost-effective about how they deal with it. Telkom, on the other hand, really couldn't give a crap. Not only do they get sugar daddy government money one way or the other, but sugar daddy government sets up the barriers to entry for competition so they're insulated.

Obviously where there is no Government there will also not be any law. Or the company with the strongest security provider will be making up the law as they go along.

This is nonsense. There would be competing arbitrators and judicial brokers all operating to suit consumer needs of efficiency and reliability. The opportunity cost of utilizing force for coercion in a private society would be astronomically high. Do you think everybody would love, respect and do business with a series of mafias? Well the government is the grand daddy of mafias. The government gets away with it because of its rapacious ability to steal, the mythology of the State and by constantly inspiring fear among people that we "need" them to protect us.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary."

"The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos."

- H.L. Mencken