hornadylnl
Shooter
- Nov 19, 2008
- 21,505
- 63
I see your point, but it overlooks the reason for the transfer. If pot C is gaining money in exchange for their work, an exchange has occurred... pot C's work has been bought...
The difference between "sucking the public teat" and "being compensated for providing the taxpayers a service" usually comes down to an individuals opinion regarding the necessity and value of the service.
Those in the military most definitely provide a service but don't produce anything. Wealth is generated by production. Pot A is the economy, pot b is the government, and pot C is the government employee.
I always thought it was the dumbest thing in the world when I was in the military for the government to send me a check and then I had to turn around and pay them money back. Why didn't they just give me my net check and save the government and the taxpayers the cost of administering the taxes?
There is another thread about someone saying that regulations provide jobs. A comment was made that those overseeing regulations don't produce anything, they just add cost. It's the same with government employees. Whether the services of government employees are necessary or not is up to interpretation. But they are a net drain on the economy. It's the same with corporations paying taxes. Not are corporations saddled with the actual cost of the tax, they have to pay employees to handle it. All of that cost is passed on to the consumer. The consumer pays the cost of administering taxes for corporations and themselves when they file their own taxes. The only thing corporate taxes benefit are the accountants and lawyers paid to administer them.