Business, Economics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary

“Tax Cuts They Don’t Need”

17 Comments

That was a phrase that Jack Lew used this morning on This Week. Ignoring the ongoing lack of distinction between “tax cuts” and “tax-rate cuts,” any use of the word “need” in federal policy betrays an intrinsically Marxist mindset. It indicates that benefits of the collective should be distributed based on need, rather than merit, economics, or constitutionality. Tax rates should be chosen to maximize revenue, not redistribute wealth, or on the basis of some government official’s opinion of what someone else “needs.” This should be pointed out each and every time it occurs, but of course George Stephanopolous isn’t going to do it.

17 thoughts on ““Tax Cuts They Don’t Need””

  1. Tax rates should be chosen to maximize revenue, not redistribute wealth, or on the basis of some government official’s opinion of what someone else “needs.”

    Slight quibble. Tax rates should be set to raise the amount of revenue necessary to fund the legitimate functions of government. We don’t necessarily want to maximize the revenue the government can collect.

    Here are a couple interesting graphs created by the New York Times (questional source, I know) via PowerLine. The first graph shows that the inflation adjusted per capita spending for “entitlement” programs has increased from $1000 to over $7000 since 1960. The second graph shows that the percentage of government benefit payments for the lowest economic quintile has decreased from 54% to 36% since 1980.

    1. I think it stands well as is. It strikes me as a good way to balance the public and the private. It puts a check on the size of government, because if it grows too large, revenues will go down. It provides a metric against which policies can be optimized.

  2. The proper role for taxes is revenue, not social engineering. Tax rates less than will pull in the maximum revenue may be justified for other reasons.

  3. It indicates that benefits of the collective should be distributed based on need, rather than merit, economics, or constitutionality.

    Well, you shouldn’t take money away from someone because he doesn’t need it, but if there is to be any redistribution of wealth it can only be justified if the recipient truly does need it. Which, most of the time, he doesn’t.

  4. That those words are being used that way, *isn’t* being countered every single time they are utters is the reason we are in such trouble. The other side does a much better job of this.

    I wish we had our own Daniel Hannan.

          1. Would you like to show me the part where he says he “advocates printing money”?

            He says he thinks Greece will default. That means pull out of the Euro. Taht means the drachma will float and yes Greece will most likely inflate their way out of debt.

            That doesn’t mean Hannan likes printing money. He has said time and again it’s the least worse of two very crummy alternatives for Greece. And for years he warned the EU that, if they kept up borrowing and bailing, it would come to these two choices.

            And here we are….

            Hannan is one of the clearest thinkers and speakers for the Conservative proposition.

  5. Maximizing revenue probably requires lowering tax rates at the margin. We’re probably taxed above the monopoly rate when all the taxing authorities are considered in concert.

  6. “Who is the public? What does it hold as its good? There was a time when men believed that ‘the good’ was a concept to be defined by a code of moral values and that no man had the right to seek his good through the violation of the rights of another. If it is now believed that my fellow men may sacrifice me in any manner they please for the sake of whatever they believe to be their own good, if they believe that they may seize my property simply because they need it – well, so does any burglar. There is only this difference: the burglar does not ask me to sanction his act.”

    — Atlas Shrugged, Capter 4.

    1. I don’t think I’ve seen Titus make a mistake. Still, good quote. I’m working my way through Fountainhead.

  7. That doesn’t mean Hannan likes printing money.

    Maybe he doesn’t like it, but that’s what he’s suggesting. There’s no point in reintroducing the drachma if it is going to be coupled to the euro. The intent would be to print money, possibly in the indirect way central banks in developed countries tend to do it, but still essentially printing money.

    The libertarian-friendly prescription is to let Greece default inside the eurozone.

  8. Interesting item here in New Mexico: there has been some suggestions that it should not be possible to use a debit card given by the state for welfare benefits to withdraw money at an ATM in one of the casinos. Ignoring for the moment the feasibility of such a restriction and the obvious thought that the money could simply be obtained elsewhere, I’m bothered by all the implications I can think of. Clearly these people don’t need the money if they can afford to gamble it away. Or clearly this is really bad that these people have such a problem that the money intended to help them–and their children–eat and have shelter is being gambled away.

    Why is my tax money going to casinos when I don’t gamble precisely because I see it as a waste of money? Anybody have a reasonable set of policy proposals that might mean the poorest and most needy are fed and sheltered but welfare dependency doesn’t happen and tax money for welfare doesn’t go to casinos?

  9. Anybody have a reasonable set of policy proposals that might mean the poorest and most needy are fed and sheltered but welfare dependency doesn’t happen and tax money for welfare doesn’t go to casinos?

    Yeah, it’s called private charity.

Comments are closed.