From Wikipedia:
There is no reliable record of Alexander Tytler’s having written any part of the text.[22] In fact, it actually comprises two parts which did not begin to appear together until the 1970s. The first paragraph’s earliest known appearance[23] is in an op-ed piece by Elmer T. Peterson in the 9 December 1951 The Daily Oklahoman , which attributed it to Tytler:
Why would someone be writing about public largesse in the 1780’s when any form of social benefits did not exist until Bismark introduced them 100 years later?
T_P fooled again by shitty memes.
Ben Franklin may have said this:
‘When people discover they can vote themselves money that is the end of the Republic’
13 years ago, someone tried to actually find the quote of Tytler, failed. Maybe they didn’t try hard enough:
That “Made Up” Quote Looks Truer And Truer Each Day – The continuing loud cautions of “Don’t Tread On MyEntitlements”, and the imminence of a majority of voters not paying any taxes, recalls yet again the rather prophetic but apparently fictitious quote of Alexander Tytler. According to many internet sources, Tytler is reputed to have published this stunning quote in a book called “The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic” (ironically said to have been published in 1776 when something interesting was happening across the pond).
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over a loss of fiscal responsibility, always followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world’s great civilizations before they decline has been 200 years. These nations have progressed in this sequence: From bondageto spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage.”
Tytler was easy enough to research. He apparently lived from 1747 to 1813. He is also listed as Lord Woodhouselee and served for a time as Judge Advocate (circa 1790). He also worked with the great Scots poet Robert Burns – offering edits and suggestions. There is, however, no sign or evidence of the alleged book nor of the quote. Some feel it was manufactured, perhaps in the Presidential Election of 2000. It does feel disturbing prophetic however.
Read an internet, people!!
So, file this one under “Political Lies that are not worth sharing.”
AZ Quotes is an internet “quote generator”
It doesn’t have to be exact (that isn’t the point of this thread)
And its also perfectly accurate: see Argentina and Greece (people voted themselves excessive benefits and both countries nearly collapsed)
I posted that because the UK is entering that territory as we speak (> 52% dependent on the state).
If you want to rebutt this, I am all ears: name a country (succesful democracy) who has less than 48% of the country as net contributors.
Democracy is the worst form of government, it’s also better than all the alternatives tried to date.
The Roman Empire had the grain dole
Please define a net contributor. I receive Social Security but I am still employed full time. My Social Security benefits exceed my federal income tax. Do I fall into the dependent or contributor category.
With respect to public social spending and democracy:
Public Social Spending as a Percentage of GDP by Country: Chart | TopForeignStocks.com
Countries at the top seem to be more democratic than the one’s at the bottom.
Can you give me an example of a country with a low level of public spending that you would characterize as a democracy?
$\textcolor{red}{\text{Not enough info to classify. Where do you stand on MAGA?}}$
Sure, see below for UK. Democracy falls apart when you have a majority who keeps voting themselves excessive benefits, as the tax base will become more and more narrow over time. A big driver of this is demographics: lots of older folks voting themselves more and more benefits.
Most households now receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes. Over the last 30 years, even middle-income households have moved from being significant net contributors to state funds to being significant net recipients.
In 2010-11, 53.4 per cent of households were overall net recipients of state money, compared with just 43.1 per cent in 1979 and 43.8 per cent as recently as 2000-01.
In 1990, the middle quintile group of households faced an effective tax rate of 8.2 per cent. But by 2010-11 this had reversed: their effective tax rate was minus 20.4 per cent – that is, they received £4,589 more in benefits than they paid in taxation.
Households in the top quintile group effectively finance the great majority of net transfers to all other households, paying £20,125 more in taxes each year than they get in benefits.
At least part of this change in effective tax rates is down to changing demographics, with an increasing proportion of retired households in the middle three quintiles. But similar trends are also observed when purely examining non-retired households.
Thats not what being a net tax contributor is.
Effectively, these situations can arise when tax rates become too skewed to the top 40% of income earners (who pay 83% of the income tax) with the rest paying very little (because they are older) due to have a high personal allowance.
France has very high taxes. But on everybody. Low, middle, and high earners. Same with Scandinavian countries (Norway, Sweden) and Denmark. None of these countries have a high personal allowance for tax.
Thats why those democracies “work”. Everybody contributes tax.
Or more concretely (in economic terms):
When I changed jobs in 1981, I noticed that my new boss had that “Democracy cannot exist …” saying on his wall. That was 43 years ago, we are still here, but I think our democracy is in worse shape now.
I don’t know if a sovereign default necessarily eliminates democracy. I think it causes a lot of economic pain and is worth avoiding for that reason.
The US federal budgeting system is so thoroughly messed up that I honestly would like to try direct democracy instead. It might be better.
Another thought: Old people who are getting Social Security and Medicare usually do not consider themselves “net takers”. They believe the taxes they paid when they were working pay for their current benefits. Similarly, parents with kids in public schools don’t see themselves as net takers because they believe they will pay enough in school taxes over the coming years to cover their kids schooling. They have a “lifetime” view of taxes and transfers.
In the United States the top 50% pay 98% of federal income tax. When you took all forms of taxation including payroll tax, state and local, taxes, total taxes are basically proportional to income. The top 40% earn about 85% of income and pay about 85% of total taxes. Is our democracy at risk because the system favors the takers over the makers?
Having unbalanced tax structures leads to political polarisation because the gap between the productive and non-productive folks widens.
I think its important for most citizens to have “skin in the game” in terms of income tax because you tend to put much more value on public services when you make contributions to their upkeep.
Thats why places like Denmark work. Everybody has “skin in the game” which leads to higher levels of trust and less political polarisation.
As Actuaries, we all know this to be a lie. They will extract far more in services than they ever paid in tax-wise in the aggregate sense.
Then stop using it, and use your own ideas. Stop doubling-down on the simple-minded mistake of believing everything you read on the internet.
The idea is accurate. Not sure why you needed assistance from Artificial Ignorance to make your point.
Gonna roast you until you are brisket-level cooked. Oh, yes, it will be slow-and-low.
Or, until you understand and acknowledge your mistake. Until then, how can we trust anything you post here?
I just liked the summarised paragraph.
No more complicated than that.
I will endeavor to make my own quotes next time just to make you happy.
This is true. The gap in wealth and income levels between the productive (high income earners) and non-productive (low income earners) is widening. Many however would argue that is because the tax structure favors the wealthiest through specific provisions in the tax code. Looking only at tax rates is quite simple minded. .
You do say plenty of truths and reasonable opinions. No need for fake quotes.
Lincoln knew what he was talking about!!
I was going to ask if the lifetime calculations are based on nominal dollars. It’s possible for everyone to be a net taker if you assume perpetual population growth and positive inflation.