no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

Category Archives: Taxation is Theft

Without a State, Who Will Help the Poor?

November 16th, 2007

There are people who wonder, “What will happen to the poor without the Government to support them?” For starters, this guy:

The Erie Community Foundation, in Pennsylvania, has received a pledge of $100-million from an anonymous donor.

But a more appropriate answer would be: Just about everyone. Drive down Main Street of any suburb during holiday season and watch as drivers roll down their windows at red lights to donate to the Knights of Columbus and the retarded children. Or to the local Salvation Army volunteers who pose as Santa Claus, ringing the bell outside your grocery store. Or to the local Fire Department when they host a pancake breakfast. For over a decade (perhaps longer) Big Boy restaurants in conjunction with the Boy Scouts, has coordinated a food-drive of undeniably epic proportions. I’m sure that wherever you live, there are dozens of charity-minded individuals and organizations just like these described above.

But some people insist that individuals aren’t giving enough. To them, the answer is clear: Government needs to give more. But the only way this can occur is if Government first takes more to begin with, from each and every one of us. Entirely neglecting to notice that Government is itself, (by crowding out private charity) the root cause of the need for more charity, increasingly, it begins to appear that Government intervention is the only viable solution. But this solution is fatally flawed.

What these advocates of intervention “see” is the government redistribution of incomes. What they don’t see is at least twofold: How that income would’ve otherwise been spent (the demand for goods and services creates opportunities for work) and how much more of that income would’ve otherwise been given to charities. One point that I never tire of repeating (OK, I do get kind of tired of it) is that by-and-large, people continue to give in spite of, and in addition to the onerous levels of taxation that many of them face. And virtually none of these people give any surplus charity to the government, although they certainly could. These people are facing aggregate tax rates approaching or exceeding 50% (sum of income taxes, sales taxes, sin taxes, property taxes, etc.) of their gross income, yet they still give to charity either through monetary donations or volunteering in-kind. Clearly, the evidence suggests that most people have a very strong sense of community and charity — yet we are led to believe that without government (to whom nobody voluntarily gives), donations to charity would simply dry up? The logic required to arrive at this conclusion is simply mind-boggling.

Would you stop giving to charity if you had more money to give?  Or would you give a little bit (or even a lot) more?    The bottom line is this: There are many, many people just like you, who express concern about the plight of the less fortunate. You and the Anonymous Millionaire Benefactors, are the answer.

Sin Taxes for Thee, Not for Me!

November 13th, 2007

A bunch of career politicians earning six figure incomes, being chauffeured around town, have for years been avoiding the tobacco sin-tax — in the Capitol building!

Cigarettes and tobacco prices have been significantly cheaper in the Capitol complex than elsewhere in Washington since cigarettes sales have long been exempt from federal and District of Columbia taxes — a perk that mainly benefits lawmakers and congressional employees.

“The Senate was operating as a discount cigarette outlet,” said Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ).

This is the very same tax that is constantly being increased for revenue and “public health” reasons, the primary burden of which is borne by the poor and working-classes. Mention their plight, and expect a (half-reasonable) response like, “Maybe they should quit smoking if they can’t afford it!” True indeed. But then again, the poor and working classes don’t have the luxury of waiving a magic fucking wand and exempting themeselves from the pesky taxes they don’t like.

Now, if you’re in Congress and you don’t like a tax, you simply exempt yourself from adhering to it.

Of course, what’s really at issue here is not the Capitol complex exemption, but rather why anyone else has to suffer the tax to begin with. I’m not a champion of tax-equality or tax fairness, unless by “equal” or “fair,” you also mean “non-existent” or “zero.” I don’t want taxes raised on various subsets (Congress included) of society until they’re equal — I want taxes lowered and abolished for all subsets of society.

I don’t want Congress to start paying the tax — I want everyone else to be able to stop.

“Shit, I do business like this all the time to get companies into the area.”

October 30th, 2007

Apparently oblivious to what is not seen, Representative John “I expect to be in the fucking leadership!” Murtha (D-PA) declares that the product of the rent-seeking that occurs in his district is both beneficial and necessary:

Mr. Murtha underscored this point at a breakfast fund-raiser held for him this summer. “This is about jobs,” he told hundreds of military contractors and lobbyists at the Johnstown Convention Center.

But, it’s about jobs, says Murtha. Jobs that he creates by depriving others of their opportunities. This is what is not seen. Every million dollars spent in Johnstown is a million dollars that won’t be spent elsewhere. It is a million dollars that may have been voluntarily invested somewhere else where it would be more efficiently allocated — this much is self-evident; lobbying simply cannot happen in the private sector:

Q: How much would you have to pay me to convince me to give you a million dollars?
A: At least a million dollars.

In the public sector, however, the cost of obtaining someone else’s million dollars is a small fraction of the total sum, at best. Some earmarks are sold for as little as a few thousand dollars.

And no shame has Murtha in either doling out appropriated funds, awarding no-bid contracts, accepting bribes from undercover agents, or testifying against fellow legislators (see: ABSCAM). In fact, “he argues that local lawmakers are best suited to understand the needs of their district,” a point with which I can’t disagree. I do take exception to the quantum leap of logic required to arrive at his conclusion, though — that his intimate knowledge of Johnstown’s situation is somehow capable of superceding the knowledge that other representatives have over their own respective districts. As the Journal notes:

Johnstown’s good fortune has come at the expense of taxpayers everywhere else. Defense contractors have found that if they open an office here and hire the right lobbyist, they can get lucrative, no-bid contracts.

What’s particularly repugnant about the process is the means by which the appropriations are determined. They are funded by taxation, so in effect Murtha is “awarding” a portion of income earned in areas about which he knows practically nothing, to companies who (donate to his campaigns and) locate in his district — the very definition of biased decision making and conflicted interests.

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics