They’re all rooted in the evil of unlimited government:
Adam Smith’s formula for prosperity — “peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice” — is the very modest ambition that conservatives aim for. Limited government is the tool by which government can be made to do good without necessarily being good, or being composed of good men.
The progressive state, on the other hand, is a state infused with moral purpose. If politics is to be a jihad, then the state must be invested with extraordinary power to achieve its moral mission. There is no way to invest the state with extraordinary power without also investing those powers in the men who hold its offices and staff its bureaucracies, which hold ever more nearly absolute power over our property and our lives. (And given that the Obama administration has made a policy of assassinating U.S. citizens without legal process, we might as well call that power “absolute.”) But if those elective offices and regulatory fortresses are to be staffed with men who are corrupt and corruptible, then the progressive vision of the morality-infused state must falter.
And they — we — are all corruptible.
Lord Acton was right, once again, about the power of power to corrupt.
What is corruption but evil and it should be treated as such. Not dealing with it in those realistic terms is part of the problem. It’s not just limiting freedom. It kills people. It takes children away from their parents. It alters our future in ways that time travel stories only hint at.
It is crime against humanity and we’re giving it a pass. We need pragmatic ways of dealing with it that get results. Breitbart was doing that by confronting the ignorant. He didn’t just write articles, he engaged. He’s dead. Nobody else really is doing that with all the good people out there.
Argument is not winning. Corruption is winning. Were we to elect all the right people it still would not be enough other than to survive a bit longer in a world increasing in corruption. Only the rate varies.
Democracy (republics) are the best system we know and they do not work. Not they sometimes work. Sometimes doesn’t count if the system itself is inherently unstable. How do you control an unstable system? You have to be active enough. This is an effort that isn’t being made and perhaps can’t be made.
We may already have reached a level beyond what can be controlled. It is not the government itself. It’s the lack of character and wisdom of those in it.
Rule of law has proved itself incapable of dealing with this evil. The bad guys can avoid any responsibilities until attention moves on. They just get shuffled around.
It requires a revolution but this time there isn’t going to be any. The bad guys laugh off the thought that they might be held accountable. We haven’t even come close to seeing the worst of it.
“There is no evil in Big Government–especially when the government is run by Dear Leader! Only Emmanuel Goldstein and his minions think Big Government is evil! Stay true to Dear Leader!”–Baghdad Jim.
“I love . . . desk. I love . . . carpet. I killed a man with a trident.”–Douchenozzle Guy.
there are little to no consequences for bad actors in government. Holder certainly is not going to hold any D’s accountable during this administration.
Holder sure didn’t hold anyone accountable from the last administration either.
14 trillion in losses from Wall Street. Did Holder indict a single wall street type for
fraudulent mortgage sales, or insider dealing on CDS?
Thousands of cases of torture in the CIA, did Holder indict anyone?
Then what good is he?
“14 trillion in losses from Wall Street. Did Holder indict a single wall street type for
fraudulent mortgage sales, or insider dealing on CDS?”
Why would Holder go after Obama’s donors?
“Thousands of cases of torture in the CIA, did Holder indict anyone?”
Thousands? Three people were water boarded. But at least we weren’t cutting people’s heads off, throwing acid in people’s faces, and brutally killing people with pain. Do you know anything about Islamic militants? Do yourself a favor and get some perspective by watching some beheading videos. Perhaps just read what they do to other Muslims, Jews, and Christians.
I am glad we hold ourselves to a higher standard but lets not pretend other people hold themselves to the same standards we do.
I do not know what his rates were but Smith did want a progressive tax with the wealthy paying more.
“The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion”
“Wealth of Nations,” Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911
Adam Smith was a proponent for the flat tax.
Taxation in proportion to revenue isn’t progressive taxation, it’s proportional taxation—in modern terminology, a flat tax. The quote not only isn’t evidence for the claim, it’s evidence against it—important evidence, since it is the first of the maxims of taxation with which Smith introduces his discussion of possible taxes.
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2011/03/misrepresenting-adam-smith.html
I recommend you read the whole blog entry. You should also remember that Smith wrote The Theory of Moral Sentiments first, and if you haven’t read that, then Wealth of Nations is incomplete.
It’s worth noting that most flat taxes often have a slightly “progressive” nature, say by not taxing a set portion of income or assets.
I agree, if a flat tax is accompanied by a significant tax free allowance, it is progressive. While the marginal rate remains constant the average tax rate increases with income.
Also from WofN
“When the toll upon carriages of luxury, upon coaches, post-chaises, etc. is made somewhat higher in proportion to their weight, than upon carriages of necessary use, such as carts, wagons, etc. the indolence and vanity of the rich is made to contribute in a very easy manner to the relief of the poor, by rendering cheaper the transportation of heavy goods to all the different parts of the country.”
Here he is advocating a higher, or progressive tax on “luxury” coaches over cargo wagons. I do not see how that can be called a flat tax.
The tax is proportional to the weight, which for transportation is common. The luxury merely adds to unnecessary weight to a carriage. If the rich want to pay the literally weighted tax to carry around unnecessary guilding, then overtime, this will create more transportation capable of the increased weight and by added supply lower the cost of heavy transport to everyone.
Example, only the jet set could originally afford the cost to fly from A to B quickly. It’s questionable if the shorter time actually provided utility to the rich or was just a luxury. Overtime thought, the use of jet travel became more common, and now almost anyone can afford the price of jet travel.
I am familiar with both David and his father, Milton’s works. Read most of their work and had some for econ text books in college. There is a saying, line all the economists in the world end to end and they wouldn’t reach a conclusion. Many disagree on this point. We are talking about what a scottsman might have mean’t 200 years ago. I can only say, from my years of reading not only Smith but also Smith’s critics, progressive was a charge seen more than once.
The core of the “Fair Tax” has both features.
The tax itself is flat.
And the stipend portion is flat.
It results in a mildly progressive tax. It could be applied to the income tax instead of the sales tax.
The size of bureaucracy: minimalized.
Tax agency itself: Deweaponized. (There’s no means testing, or reason to even accumulate lots of the current info).
Corruption would at least be perceived on an unskewed field – They’re cheating on a front that every single juror would grasp.
Life happens in stages.
First you must accumulate skills.
Second you use those skills to accumulate wealth while you are strong and productive.
Finally you live on the wealth you’ve accumulated and the health services you’ve insured for.
The worst time to tax is while accumulating wealth to get to the final stage. Income should not be taxed at all. Sales tax allows people to control how much they are taxed without limiting income.
You don’t need an IRS to collect sales tax, most states already do it. April 15th become just another day for most people. No need for more than one tax rate. Sales tax is naturally progressive. The Rich buy more stuff and the quality of stuff bought will likely go up as well causing a hidden beneficial growth factor.
I dunno… I have a really bad feeling about the sales tax version of the flat tax.
It seems to me that a sales tax depresses consumption.
It also seems to me that the “sales” tax is kind of like a VAT in that when the cedar tree logger sells the logs to the pencil manufacturer, a sales tax is applied…when the trucker is paid to haul the logs to the factor a sales tax is applied. When the graphite miner sells the stuff there’s a tax applied etc etc
And all of these taxes are paid for by the consumer who buys the pencil.
Yes, sales taxes are paid at each of these stages BUT the big difference is that the sales tax is a State-set number. So the sales tax coming out of the state with the log selling company might be lower than the sales tax applied when you buy the pencil in New York City. A Federal one-size-fits-all tax added to each contributing state sales tax is a problem as all Federal one-size-fits-all remedies is.
Furthermore, some states do not apply sales tax to certain items like clothes and food. Now clothes and food will have a Federal Sales Tax.
I guess it seems like the opportunity for unintended consequences is far higher with a Federal Sales Tax than it would be for a Federal income Flat tax.
But I admit to not thinking it through entirely and am willing to be convinced otherwise.
I would also say that either one of those is far preferable to what we have now.
Sales tax like a VAT as a bumblebee is like a 747. Only new items going to the consumer are taxed and the beauty is it makes the tax visible to the voters. It’s simple in being only one rate so our representatives have less machinations power. It puts the power of taxation in the consumers hands where it belongs. The evil trick they use today is hiding all forms of fees so the consumer doesn’t know how much they are being taxed. That’s something they really aught to know in order to vote correctly.
It doesn’t even need the fair tax provision of making it more progressive by sending checks out to everyone every month. But those checks could be used to replace a whole host of other welfare expenses.
State taxes are a completely separate issue other than the tax is collected by the state making it much simpler and less tyrannical than the IRS setup. You can leave a state you don’t like. It’s much harder to leave a country.
Being revenue neutral means it does not depress consumption any more than our current system. You don’t think having your income reduced doesn’t depress consumption?
“Only new items going to the consumer are taxed…”
Who says? What is a consumer? Is a pencil manufacturer that buys cedar logs a consumer? If not, why not?
How does one define a consumer in a law such that everyone knows the consumer is a person buying an end result?
What if I go to buy a cedar log because I need to make more planks for my sailboat? I am a private person; this is not for a business. How am I different than the pencil manufacturer?
Or
I am a boat builder and I’ve been pad cash to build a boat for you. I need to buy a log for the planks. How does the system know I am doing something for hire? What if I’m not incorporated and don’t want to be. I just want to build boats.
And so I include, on my tax return, the money you paid me to build your boat. Do I now have to pay the sales tax for the cedar log? That means I have to remember/record that I bought a cedar log for a sales transaction between you and I.
Why should I have to do that?
Much easier for me to record my income and calculate 5% of that and mail it in.
Who says that the law will be written such that all transactions are not subject to this federal tax?
Gregg, there is a well established difference between wholesale and retail. The good news is the retailer gets to decide.
“Gregg, there is a well established difference between wholesale and retail. The good news is the retailer gets to decide.”
As far as I know, that mechanism consists of the seller asking the buyer if he has a “number”….meaning a tax number to use because the buyer is a business.
What would stop the buyer who*is* buying for a business to answer :No.”?
Again I see too many loopholes and dodges in a flat tax on transactions. You might even see the government redefine what a “business” is the way they are trying t redefine what a “journalist” is…which is evil, in my opinion.
As far as I know, that mechanism consists of the seller asking the buyer if he has a “number”….meaning a tax number to use because the buyer is a business.
What would stop the buyer who*is* buying for a business to answer :No.”?
Yes. Good Summary. That is exactly how it works. Nothing prevents them from doing it now and many do say no on many of their purchases. This is called freedom and individual responsibility. They have no incentive to say no when saying no costs them more. They do it because of old fashioned honesty because they do not intend to resell the purchase. To say not giving a SSN is incentive is silly since that is how wholesale has been working.
Here’s the point. A thing is only taxed once by this law (if it were to come to be law) and does not degenerate into a VAT (well you do still have to guard against the machinations and mendacity of the politicals but that’s a given.) It is regulated by the consumer giving them much more control. If you want smaller government trading income for sales tax is a no brainer. Eliminating income tax allows people to earn more without penalty. It took an amendment to get the income tax. A bad amendment that should be repealed.
What about those evil people that would earn more than the rest of us (by risk taking and hard work?)
That’s the good news. They have more wealth so they buy more things. Making a sales tax progressive without requiring politicals to mess with multiple tiers. The sales tax is one rate for everybody. It doesn’t even require monthly checks to everyone to make it more progressive as the Fair Tax includes. But either way it works.
Your fear should keep you watching they make it into something other than a sales tax but it shouldn’t keep you from a sales tax itself. Other than no taxes I think it’s the best tax of all. Even property taxes have problems a sales tax doesn’t.
should financial transactions be taxed?
when wall street sells stocks, bonds or derivatives should those be taxed?
“should financial transactions be taxed?
when wall street sells stocks, bonds or derivatives should those be taxed?”
What is your opinion an why?
Are you saying that they aren’t taxed? Because they are already taxed. But if you really want to kill the economy so the Grand Socialist Revolution can finally take place as prophesied by the oracles, then go ahead and tax every transaction. It will destroy savings, retirement plans, and the capitol market. Just think twice about how glorious your revolution will be. These things have a habit of eating their own. Just look at OWS.
The desire to accumulate power – especially after one has had a taste of is, is more or less present in all humans. It’s wired in. Maybe from survival instincts going all the way back to Ogg.
Some have more of a taste for power than others. Those people naturally will often gravitate towards business and/or politics.
Denial of this tendency is to be wholly ignorant of human nature. Those that love their liberty – liberal or conservative – should be very wary of increaased government control.
But the liberals and RINO’s are not wary – they are the ones whop WANT that power.
And that is one basic concept that our Beloved Jim and others cannot get through their heads. So they come up with “Well the GOP did it too in 200xx, so they must not think the bew liberal idea is a bad one!”
Not realizing – though the’ve been told at least 5000 times – that the GOP does not equal Conservative and they are of the same timber as the Lib-Dems – power hungry.
I hear a lot of people say things like, “Well if left totheir own devices, the people wouldn’t feed the poor. Government must force them to do it by taxing them and doing it with a government agency”
1) How do they know what people – as a whole – will and will not do and,
2) Speakers of this nonsense are merely creatures of habit. Their habit – and the MSM’s habit as well – when confronted with an issue is to immediately think/say, “This is awful. What’s the government going to do about that?!?!?” And then procede to expend huge amounts of energy and money coercing the government.
Not realizing that if they spent that time, money, and energy persuading the people to do something about it, they could both solve the problem and retain their liberty.
I’ve said it many times here before:
Clearly, lib-dem-soccialist do not value their liberty.
People feed the poor now. How can they claim they would not?
The claim is that if they weren’t forced to feed thm via taxes, they wouldn’t feed them
Which is a false claim on it’s face. People are being taxed and IN ADDITION are also feeding the poor beyond that taxation.
Here is a very recent example of what I’m talking about:
Private charity can’t replace government social programs
By Michael Hiltzik
To suggest that community or faith-based charities can effectively supplant government social programs is a fantasy that serves only as a talking point to cut those programs.
“The idea that community or faith-based charities were more efficient, effective and capable than the government of addressing economic stringency hasn’t been true since the industrial revolution transformed the U.S. from an agrarian to an urban nation.
To suggest that such organizations can effectively supplant government social programs is worse than a mere fantasy — it’s a cynical and dangerous fantasy that serves only as a talking point to cut those programs.
The truth is that private, communal and religious giving simply can’t meet the needs that government programs handle. Let’s examine why.”
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20140330,0,1556558.column#axzz2xRmRqdvE
In economic terminology, charitable giving is pro-cyclical, not counter-cyclical, unlike programs such as unemployment insurance and food stamps, which expand to meet rising needs.
Do they realize what they just said? The wealthier we are the more we give.
That sounds like an excellent reason not to have programs that reduce the overall wealth. The problem with programs for the poor is they always include soul sucking provisions that penalize those that are willing to work for more. Take away the means testing. It would be far cheaper to just eliminate all welfare and unemployment insurance and mail out a check to all heads of households so that everybody had a minimum income safety net. It should not take them out of poverty by being too much since that is also a disincentive.
The Fair Tax includes such a provision. Nobody would starve.
You don’t really have to eliminate unemployment insurance either. Just let private companies sell it. Get the states out of the business.
There can be no such thing as ‘fairness in taxation.’ Taxation is nothing but organized theft, and the concept of a ‘fair tax’ is therefore every bit as absurd as that of ‘fair theft.’ – Murray Rothbard
Fair is a word used by demagogues, but at least calling something a ‘Fair Tax’ isn’t worse than ‘Affordable Care Act.’
Corruption is the rot, but it’s wrapped in misplaced compassion. Having criminals in government is bad (& inevitable), but do-gooders are far worse.
Do-gooders are worse than criminals? Because they allow criminals to be elected?