Taxation is Representation

This came up on LinkedIn. One of the local consultants posted a link about changes to the income tax that will affect married couples. In reply, I wrote:

In this economy, the opportunity to pay taxes is mark of social distinction. We all want something for nothing. National defense, parks, funding for research and support for education, and more; and we pay for all of that with taxes.

Yes, as a libertarian who is active in the local Republican party, I can make a strong case for the abolition of all taxes. It is easy to do with parks and education. It is a little harder with national defense.

No system of taxes is fair. Here in Texas, we fund with a sales tax that regressively falls on the poor, but a state income tax would damage our economy. Should we abolish the federal income tax and go with a VAT? Taxation may be the worst way to pay for government, but if you know of a better way, let us hear it.

And then I added this:

"Populists, plutocrats and the GOP sales tax"

By Charles Postel FEBRUARY 14, 2013

Today’s Republicans ... want to replace it with sales and excise taxes ‑ levies that place the heaviest burden on working and poor Americans.

Abolishing the income tax enjoys strong support in the Republican House of Representatives. ...

The common denominator of all these GOP schemes is that they will punish working and poor people – and make the rich richer.
Link here:
Populists, Plutocrats, and GOP Sales Tax

All taxes "punish" someone if you want to see it that way. Basically, every citizen - every resident or visitor - has an obligation to meet their side of the social contract. Citizens of whatever income all enjoy the same basic rights and protections of the state the poor no less than the rich.

I forget where I was then, Kentucky or North Carolina, but if I bought a plain white t-shirt it was not taxed, because it was necessary clothing, but if I bought one with a logo on it it was a luxury good. In Michigan and/or Ohio, groceries are not taxed, but restaurants are a luxury, so if you goto McD's get it to go.

It might be said that married people have a greater stake in society and therefore should pay proportionally more for the benefits that being in society gives to the family.

Just sayin'... No one likes taxes. Everyone likes what they buy.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 2/16, 6:22am)

Post 1

Friday, February 15, 2013 - 1:00pm

This idea that some taxes are "regressive" and others are not, is pure Progressive propanda that arises from Marxist class warfare. If we assume that it is possible to have a small government that focuses only on, just for the sake of this example, national defense, then each individual is being defended equally. A liberal might say this isn't so because the rich person has more property that is being defended. But what is being defended are the rights to property and liberty. And the poor person is as dead or as enslaved as the rich person if a nation is not defended.

How can anyone justify taking more from someone just because they have more? Why does being rich invoke a penalty, while being poor creates a ticket for a free ride? Is it coming from the Christian view of easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven? Is it from the altruistic bias against those who pursue their self-interest? Is it the bitter mediocrity's hatred for success? Is it the Marxist hatred of the rich and the desire to redistribute their wealth?

When someone says "No system of taxation is fair" it should be pointed out that what is important is that some systems of taxation are massively unfair, while others are very close to being fair and THAT difference is a HUGE difference - And, that is what we should focus on so as to move away from unfair and towards fair.

As to abolishing the Federal Income tax, I say, "Yes!" But as to replacing it with the VAT? No. Taxes on businesses are just indirect taxes on individuals since the taxes become part of the purchase price of whatever the business is selling. But it is hidden, harder to limit, and harms us in competing globally. VAT would be awful. Replace income taxes with the 'Fair Tax' - or with some other form of national sales tax.

Michael says that all taxes are punishments, yet goes on to say they are obligations born of social contract! Doesn't he see how that logically stands up as saying we should be penalized for social contracts. He says that married people get more from their social contract so they should pay more. And his rant seems to be more of that crap about special privileges if you are poor, but greater penalties if you are rich. Why should being rich mean you are forced to support the poor?

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 2/16, 8:48am)

Post 2

Friday, February 15, 2013 - 2:14pm

Taxes on businesses are just indirect taxes on individuals since the taxes become part of the purchase price of whatever the business is selling. But it is hidden, harder to limit...

I wish more people understood this. I think making the tax code more simple and visible is something that Republicans and Libertarians should really target as a pragmatic attempt to get people to demand lower taxes. It is much easier to show people in this way rather than trying to debate why taxes should be lower. It's one of those broken window type situations where if people can't see the results of legislation, they don't care as much.

Imagine two situations. In the first situation you tax a business 25 cents, which forces them to raise their prices. In the second situation you tax the customer 25 cents at the time of purchase. In both cases the customer pays 25 cents more. In which situation do you think people would be more upset with the tax? In which situation do you think the business would be "the bad guy"?

Post 3

Friday, February 15, 2013 - 2:44pm

Dan, you are totally correct about the way these two situations are perceived by most people.

People don't understand that they pay the business taxes with their purchases. But it is even worse. When the tax is laid upon the individual through the business, instead of directly, we see more of the following:

The tax is hidden from the individual and that makes it easier for government to creep it upward.
The individual doesn't feel the pain of being taxed directly, so they don't turn their ire on the politicians where it should be which is what would lower taxes that have gotten too high.
It encourages special interests to create all kinds of complex tax laws that give exemptions, often for the purpose of making their competitors less competitive and that harms the economy.
Complex tax code corrupts the political environment, and moves us away from objective law, equality under the law and due process.
This close relationship with businesses encourages crony capitalism.
The higher price of products means products produced in our country are less competitive in the global market which decreases our employment and capital flows out to countries with lower tax bases.
Taxing businesses discourages production and investment as compared to a sales tax which discourages spending and encourages savings and investment.
Because, like nearly every other Progressive scheme, it depends upon the voters being ignorant of the facts, it encourages misleading rhetoric, dumbing down of the culture, outright lies, and dishonest politicians

Post 4

Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 6:58am

I edited the original post to make it clearer what and whom I was quoting. If Steve Wolfer was confused, others might be as well.

Confusing, also, are the specifics of this so-called "Fair" Tax. Americans for Fair Tax says that the sales tax would be 23%: the 15% of the lowest income tax bracket, plus the 7.65% social security tax. But on their own front page in 2008 was this 2007 story from National Review Online that said that the sales tax woudl be 30%.

NRO Article from 2007 posted on Fair Tax Dot Org here.
"How Fair Tax Works" from Fair Tax Dot Org's own page here.

The numbers are really not important right now. The fact is that if you make $200,000 per year, a 30% national sales tax hurts you less than if you make $20,000 per year. Poor people have less margin, less discretional income. As it is now, they pay zero income tax. The "Fair Tax" puts them in the same 30% (or 23%) bracket as the rich.

The words "progressive" and "regressive" are just arithmetic. On the one hand you pay more if you make more; on the other hand you pay more if you make less. That is all it means.

The "Fair Tax" people also refer to "necessities." "The FairTax rate after necessities is 23% and ..." As I said on LinkedIn, I have been in states where plain white T-shirts were not taxed, but T-shirts with logos were. One was a necessity, the other was not. Similarly, in Ohio, if you goto McDonald's and order to go, it is "groceries" but if you eat in, you are taxed on the luxury of a restuarant meal. You can see the many problems with "necessities." Should we really tax food, clothing, and shelter at all? What about transportation? Right now, I cannot think of a city with a private bus or train line. So, if you buy a car, you pay 30% (23%) sales tax, but if you ride the (tax-supported; here in Austin, 1% sales tax supported) city lines, you pay no taxes on that purchase? But, then does it make sense to boost the city lines to $1.30 or $2.60, to collect even more tax to pay for a service that is already tax-paid? (Here in Austin the bus fare is one dollar per ride just to keep homeless people from living on buses.)

You cannot make taxation fair. To say that we will pick the least of all evils (if we can) it to admit to utilitarianism and pragmatism. That would be fine, but they are not Objectivism, of course. No form of taxation is fair. Someone pays. Someone else pays less. It is unavoidable. But, we know no other way to pay for government.

A lottery puts the government in the gambling business. The hard empircal reality is the many state lotteries now are far worse odds than the old "Mafia" numbers racket. When I was a boy in Cleveland, neighborhood stores sold these chits for 50cents. The winning number was the last three digits of the Federal Reserve balance published the next morning in the Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper. You bet on 1000 to 1 and got paid 500 to 1, about six weeks' wages for an unskilled worker back then. No government lottery pays that well, and the government hires mathematicians, computer programmers, and marketing agencies to ensure that no one will win, but the advertising will always be attractive, with lots of new games. (Scratch off cards are the most popular media.) And where is education? Has a single state been able show improvements in public education from lottery money they take in? That speaks to progressive-regressive. Poor people buy lottery tickets; rich people do not. So, poor people subsidize the schools of rich people. No system is fair.

The idea of buying "contract insurance" has its own problems. (If I buy the insurance, but you do not, how do I bring you into court?) This puts the government in the arbitration business and denies a citizen their right to justice, or else why have a government at all, if you can be defrauded by someone who chooses not to pay the "contract fee"?

All I am saying is that we picked a system and we live with it. The income tax evolved over 100 years to what it is today. Anything else will only have different problems, not better ones.

My proposal is to keep the income tax as it is, amending it as we can and do, but to tie voting to taxpaying. When you pay your income tax, the government sends you a voter registration card. That would require repealing the 24th Amendment. It also opens the question of "How much tax?" One dollar? A hundred? A thousand?...

Amendment XXIV
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 2/16, 7:12am)

Post 5

Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 10:05am

Michael, 'The Fair Tax' is just one proposal for a consumption tax - a kind of national sales tax. And, you are right that the numbers aren't important, but let me add that this proposal also replaces all of the social security taxes, not just the employee side but also the employer side, and the unemployment tax - all of the payroll taxes paid by either the employee or the employer. It also replaces corporate taxes, income taxes, and inheritance taxes. And the proponents have added a feature to make their tax non-regressive - it has a "pre-bate" where everyone receives a check at the beginning of the year for an amount equal to about what the total fair tax would cost a person who is in a lower tax bracket. Everyone, no matter what their income or wealth level would get the same amount.

This means that everyone can spend as much as a person in a lower income bracket typically spends and, in effect, pay no taxes at all. This means that if a person who is in that lower income bracket spends less, they actually make money on this scheme. But like you said, the numbers aren't important.
------------

You wrote:

The fact is that if you make $200,000 per year, a 30% national sales tax hurts you less than if you make $20,000 per year. Poor people have less margin, less discretional income. As it is now, they pay zero income tax. The "Fair Tax" puts them in the same 30% (or 23%) bracket as the rich.

No. The 'pre-bate' means that they can be in the same situation of zero taxes, or even make some money. But that's just details of a particular proposal and I want to address the moral issue here.

You wrote:

The words "progressive" and "regressive" are just arithmetic. On the one hand you pay more if you make more; on the other hand you pay more if you make less. That is all it means.

That's so not true. Progressives favor progressive tax schemes and those are schemes that move towards the rich paying massive percentages and the poor paying nothing. If a someone like Bill Gates makes 100 million in a year, and pays 10%, he has paid $10,000,000. That is clearly more than the poor person who makes $12,000 in the same year and pays $1,200. Gates would have paid over 8,000 times as much - but progressives still think this isn't enough.

Applying the same percentage is far fairer AND it results in the rich paying more in a directly proportional fashion. And it is good for the economy. Most of our laws today, thanks to both progressives and to crony capitalism and special interests are in violation of the basic concept of equal under the law.

You talk about margin and discretionary income... Why would that change anything? If you have a lower discretionary margin than someone else, does that mean that you should be able to force a supplier of some service to provide it for less than what they want?
-------------

Again, you aren't familiar with the Fair Tax proposal, at least not as it has been structured for the last few years, because it applies to everything - there are no exceptions. It applies to all tee-shirts, with or without logos, to food, shelter, everything. The 'pre-bate' is what they have put in a number of years ago to keep it from being 'regressive.'
---------------------

You wrote:

Should we really tax food, clothing, and shelter at all?

It's important to remember that we don't tax food, or clothing, or shelter - we tax a person. There are problems, large problems, with not taxing some people and taxing others - it is unfair. And there are problems with taxing people for some products and not others. The main problem in this area is that it opens up the giant can of worms: politicians working with special interests to create complex rat-warrens of rules that govern what is taxed and what is not.
---------------

You wrote:

You cannot make taxation fair.

Not when the person defines 'fair' as meaning that poor people get special priviledges and politicians have to decide how to deal every single kind of transaction. You can make taxation fairer - but it requires no politicians and special interests, the same rules and the same percentages for everyone.

Michael, you constantly harp on the same thing: The rich and the poor. You appear to have been infected with that class warfare meme, or altruism, some time in the past, and still retain some of it.

You are saying the same thing Karl Marx said in 1875, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
---------------

You wrote:

The income tax evolved over 100 years to what it is today. Anything else will only have different problems, not better ones.

Please don't mistake the results of crony capitalism and Progressive political maneuvering for some kind of natural evolution. Saying something "evolved" isn't evidence of either good value or inevitability. Saying that anything else will be as bad is an absurd, bald statement. If we create better rules, we will get better outcomes.
---------------

There is nothing morally wrong with your suggestion of tying voting to paying taxes - in that those who have paid can be presumed to have a kind of ownership right that wouldn't apply as much to those that haven't. But if you keep the income tax which allows the politicians to make new decisions year after year, while consulting with their backroom special-interest buddies, and then with your proposal, they might be able to shape tax policy to exclude voters they think support the other party. I can see republicans saying that low income people don't have to pay any taxes, but that means they don't get a vote and putting a check box right on the bottom of the 1040 - "Check here if your total taxes due are greater than zero, but less than $1000 and you are willing to forego voting in order to reduce your taxes due to zero"
---------------

You didn't answer my questions. I'll ask them again:

Why should being rich mean you are forced to support the poor? Should the healthy be forced to sacrifice and pay for those who are sick? Should those who are tall, be taxed more than those who are short?
How can anyone justify taking more from someone just because they have more? Why is having more a bad thing?
Why does being rich invoke a penalty, while being poor creates a ticket for a free ride?

Post 6

Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 1:28pm

Just a quick bromide:

Taxation in this country should be steered toward this:

1.9% federal sales tax
1.9% state sales tax
1.9% local sales tax

No other taxes should be allowed other than these three, because it can (probably) be shown that moving in any direction away from this produces inefficiency and immorality.

Ed
[like I said, a short bromide]

Post 7

Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 8:36pm

Purchase of government bonds.
War bonds to fund military.
Guardianship bonds to fund courts and police.
Optional civic bonds if people are still under the delusion that government can or even should build infrastructure.

Only people that buy bonds get to vote. (That would solve the problem on welfare people voting for more Obamarxes).

Government officials only to be payed 20k/yr so they do not make a career out of politics.
(Edited by Jules Troy on 2/16, 8:39pm)

Post 8

Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 9:01pm

"Only people that buy bonds get to vote."

Get to vote on...what, exactly?

Post 9

Sunday, February 17, 2013 - 1:22am

On who as Fred says "gets to run the plumbing".
An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods. A large portion of the population is on welfare. These same people vote for the candidate that will rob from the productive and hand out more of it to those that not only did not earn it but do not deserve it. This cycle is further enabled by single mothers getting a bigger amount in the form of child tax credits. In essence being payed to pump out kids that are raised by the state. No accountability or responsibility at all. It is no coincidence that 98% of Detroit voted for Obama.
I know it sounds "wacked" but people that are on welfare should not be able to vote. They are morally criminal in that they encourage the leftist trends towards statist power that has ruined most of western civilization. People that are in prison cannot vote until they are no longer in prison. People on welfare should be removed from voting until such time as they rejoin productive society as well.

No I am not heartless, I have no problem with having temporary safety net for those that hit hard times. However it should be assistance not live off it for life. YES I am sick of paying enough taxes to feed 5 welfare families for a year and have them demand more!

Post 10

Sunday, February 17, 2013 - 6:02am

deleted

(Edited by Joe Maurone on 2/17, 6:04am)

Post 11

Sunday, February 17, 2013 - 8:11am

SW:You didn't answer my questions. I'll ask them again:
Why should being rich mean you are forced to support the poor? Should the healthy be forced to sacrifice and pay for those who are sick? Should those who are tall, be taxed more than those who are short?
How can anyone justify taking more from someone just because they have more? Why is having more a bad thing?
Why does being rich invoke a penalty, while being poor creates a ticket for a free ride?

I did not answer them because they were rhetorical; and my answers would be the same as yours.

As every Objectivist knows, attempting to change the poltical structure without first creating a viable philosophical foundation is pointless. But we can discuss politics. I just note objectively what I see.

You complain that the income tax we have is not a "natural evolution" but some wierd contraption of social forces. The wooly mammoth would say the same about the Indian elephant, the dire wolf about the German shepherd. Evolution is what it is, no less so for social entities. I have longish paper about Herbert Spencer if you have nothing better to do.

JT: "A large portion of the population is on welfare. These same people vote for ... people that are on welfare should not be able to vote. They are morally criminal in that they encourage the leftist trends ... People on welfare should be removed from voting until such time as they rejoin productive society as well.

Generally, people on welfare do not vote. They are sometimes rounded up in voter registration drives and such, but that is the bandwagon of democracy at the precinct level. I almost agree with the main point, that people who receive government money should not vote.

What about public employees? If you are a federal employee, should you at least be allowed to vote in your township, though not in federal elections? What about veterans? They get benefits. You might say that while serving they should not vote. I might say that if no one else does vote that at least active military should as it is their lives put on the line. That is how democracy started in the Greek polis of about 650 BCE, with citizens voting to go to war (and hire themselves out as mercenaries). At least, perhaps, if not voting while in the military, perhaps only veterans should vote, as per "Starship Troopers" which argued that when you vote you call upon the full destructive power of the state to do your bidding and no one should be allowed that power who does not understand what it means.

What about employees of corporations like Solyndra or Arthur-Daniels-Midland or General Motors? When GM took the bailout, should their employees lose their voting privileges? When Gulf War II was launched, my (private) security company employer posted me to support Homeland efforts. Can I still vote?

JT: Purchase of government bonds. War bonds to fund military. Guardianship bonds to fund courts and police. Optional civic bonds if people are still under ....

Yes, that was the outcome in The Secret of the League: the story of a social war by Ernest Bramah which has been suggested as a forerunner of Atlas Shrugged. Only bond holders could vote, with bonds starting at 500 UK pounds of 1900, like maybe $30,000 today. The standard Treasury bond today is $1,000.

Post 12

Sunday, February 17, 2013 - 8:36am

I know it sounds "wacked" but people that are on welfare should not be able to vote.

Not to me, it doesn't.

===Not just Welfare, but Everyone Receiving Tax Dollars===

People who work for the government also have a conflict of interest, and even though they might be doing nothing wrong, and might be a U.S. Marshall, or Federal Judge, or an employee of defense contractor, they too should not be permitted to vote - just part of the deal when you get paid out of tax dollars.

===Need to Stop Thinking of Voting as a Sacred Right===

Voting isn't sacred. And it isn't an individual right. It is a civil right - a created, legal right. It has its roots in our understanding of ourselves as equal in our individual rights, and therefore equal under the law, and that because the government is created by us, of us, and for us - we should run it (by proxy). This concept of the citizens choosing the people to man the government wasn't a gift from God, or from the government, but from our founding fathers who in turn received it from a select few others going back to ancient Greece - but just as a good idea, not an inalienable right.

===Voting Serves a Purpose===

It isn't like something we are justly entitled to, in the sense that we are entitled to our liberty. It is a practice that has been chosen to suit a purpose. It's a mechanism whose purpose is to distribute the power to control the direction of government in a way that is hopefully less likely to result in tyranny. But clearly, treating it like it was a Holy rite, a sacred gift, so that it goes to people with a clear conflict of interest is ignoring the very purpose of voting. Anyone who thinks it is ethical for a majority to vote themselves money taken from a minority, are no more in the right than a lynch mob that attempts to claim they are right because they were acting as a majority.

===Voting as a Progressive Tool===

It is the progressives that have spent decades pushing this tinge of worshipful obeisance and politically correctness to the vote. And it doesn't take much guessing to know why. It worked.
------

Jules, your idea isn't "wacked" - it's necessary. And it's going to be a long road back to clean up all the decades of politically correct dogma.

Post 13

Sunday, February 17, 2013 - 8:56am

Michael,

You complain that the income tax we have is not a "natural evolution" but some wierd contraption of social forces. The wooly mammoth would say the same about the Indian elephant, the dire wolf about the German shepherd. Evolution is what it is, no less so for social entities.

Not so. Biological evolution is driven by natural selection acting via genes. That is not the same for human social entities which are driven by the choices people make in which ideas to accept and how to act upon them. Very different kinds of evolution. Do you believe we have choice?
---------------

The questions I asked, and you didn't answer, aren't just rhetorical. They go directly to your statements.

Here in Texas, we fund with a sales tax that regressively falls on the poor...

You aren't happy with a system where government isn't paid for proportionally more by the rich (and/or the middle-class) so as to favor the poor. It is there in your words, yet you won't own the principle under that. The purpose of my questions is to illustrate that.

Post 14

Sunday, February 17, 2013 - 10:02am

Thank you Steve you said it with far more eloquence than I! We are definitely on the same page here.

It sickens me seeing QE 4-infinity in order to "stimulate the economy". It did not work for pre wwll Germany, It sure as heck is not working for Japan as you can see from the Yen's power dwindling daily. If the government was really interested in bolstering the economy all it has to do is GET OUT of the economy.

One prime example. Government has no business whatsoever in "approving" the Keystone XL pipeline. The building of it should be left to the parties involved in the project. Nor should the enviro nazis have the ability to special interest group lobby anything. As far as environmental concerns a pipeline is the environmentally safest method of transferring product from point A to B.(and this pipeline in particular will be setting new standards in safety). When ever you ship oil from the middle east you have spillage at both the loading and offloading points. Then you have to ship it by rail or truck so not only do you have more spillage there but also the added risk of the trucks getting into accidents or the train de-railing.
Also you would no longer be funding middle eastern interests. Ever.

This brings me back to my case for war bonds. It would be the end of "nation building". Get in do the job and then leave! If our security is threatened wwll style you cannot put a price on freedom, people would pay what ever it takes to defend the nation. People however would not fund a 10 year police action ala Afghanistan!

Ok time to drive home from work have a nice Sunday!

Post 15

Sunday, February 17, 2013 - 11:07am

Thanks, Jules.

On the Keystone pipeline, this is another example, like gun control, where the Progressives are only able to get away with what they are doing because too many of the people are ignorant and/or comfortable with liberal ideas, AND the media gives them cover to lie about the issue.

Otherwise, people would point out that,

There are already many pipe lines all through that general area, and they have had no problems with them, and that worries about the water table is made up non-sense.
That this will not save any drilling or fracking or exploring, because the Canadians are going to sell that oil somewhere. If not to us via a pipeline, then to China with a pipeline to a shipping port.

Since none of the stated objections make sense, and everyone who pays close attention to this knows that, then there is an unstated objection. The only reasons I can think of are:

They want the cost of fossil fuels to be higher in the U.S. in order to make the alternative energy sources, like wind and solar seem more feasible,
The have an irrational hatred for fossil fuels,
They want to expand their control over things in general, the energy sector in particular.

On the issue of funding the middle-east, that, I'm afraid, goes on no matter what we do here. Oil is a fungible commodity. One barrel of a given grade of crude is like another. And it is a global market. So, even if we produce more than we can use, and we end up selling into the open market more than any American sources buy, the middle-east does the same. The get paid for their product just as our oil producers get paid for their product. All the talk of "energy independence" doesn't really make sense when you understand that (except in times of a world war where every side attempts to enforce military blockades and then it helps a lot to have all of the needed resources within your borders - but that is a different deal).

As far as the Middle-East goes (and Venezuela), what we should have done is to use the military if needed to take back those oil fields that were nationalized. The countries involved would still have received the original, contracted royalties, but it is unlikely OPEC would have formed. But, even then, the increase in oil prices isn't all to be blamed on the Middle-East or OPEC. We have been destroying the value of the dollar, especially since the early 70's and that is a major driver in the long-term price of oil since the dollar is the currency used in all oil contracts. Another big driver has been the industrial and consumer growth in some of the largest of the developing nations: China, India, Brazil, etc. This fueled a large increase in demand for oil. The Progressive's hatred for fossil fuels is making things worse - causing unemployment and other damage to the economies, but it isn't the only factor.

Here is a bit of news, or maybe you've already heard it. There are a number of the radical environmental groups that have taken to suing the EPA - and often for things that the Progressives in the EPA would like to do, but can't stretch their legislative charter far enough. What happens is that the EPA lawyers agree to settle out of court with the radicals, agree to act on their demands, at least in that specific case, which sets a precedent, and the large cash settlement, plus the cost of legal fees, funds the radical group. It's a very cozy set-up and no one is thinking this is anything but collusion. Just another day in wacky redistributionland.

Post 16

Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - 5:20am

The questions of taxation and voting are fundamental to theories of government. I asked (rhetorically) whether a federal employee should be barred from voting in federal elections, but be allowed to vote in local elections. I also suggested (following Heinlein's "Starship Troopers") that only veterans should vote. Whether active service military should vote is a corollary question. I have no easy answers and I am not in charge of the world, anyway, so at best, following the reasoning can only frame the theories.

SW: People who work for the government also have a conflict of interest, and even though they might be doing nothing wrong, and might be a U.S. Marshall, or Federal Judge, or an employee of defense contractor, they too should not be permitted to vote - just part of the deal when you get paid out of tax dollars.

Denying voting privileges to "an employee of a defense contractor" could lead to anarchy or totalitarianism, depending on which route you follow for the reduction to absurdity. In the imaginary world of an "Objectivist government" that institution still needs paper, pencils, computers, paint and primer, and all the other goods and services that any individual or commercial firm requires. If it came time to refurbish Independence Hall or the Library of Congress, and the architects needed a special kind of "colonial" paint, selling it to them would cancel your voting privileges. Then what?

As I have suggested, even a constitutionally limited "Objectivist government" can grow to any size by extending its own operations for its own internal use. For about a hundred years the Springfield Armory made the weapons of the Army. Should the Capitol Building be policed? From whence their uniforms? How would they be fed? Should it be painted, air conditioned, furnished with desks. Ultimately, the government could have mines, farms, factories, ... whatever it wanted.

If it had none of those, if it bought everything by contract -- and if being the employee of a contractor cost you your privilege to vote -- then what if no one sold to the government? It would shut down completely: no food, no bullets, no fuels,....

Gratefully, we do not live by reduction to the absurd. Thus, we have an income tax, and property taxes, and sales taxes. We vote on some directly. Others are enacted by elected representatives. You can construct all the airy theories you enjoy, but ultimately, with your feet on the ground, you have to accept the fact that every community has the government it deserves.

What we collectively choose to deserve is the deeper question, of course.

Post 17

Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - 7:18am

Michael,

I can't even imagine many other people being led to reduce my suggestion to that absurd level you did. With a small government, doing only those things a government should, very, very few companies will make most or all of their revenues from the Federal government. Your suggestion that it could magically grow to where it consumed every company in the nation is... absurd. Not an argument, just absurd.

The principle is that if an employee's salary is dependent upon the government, there is a conflict of interest. If a pencil company sells 49% of its pencils to the government then it wouldn't apply (50% seems like a good dividing line). But these are silly details and how you could weave them into a slippery-slope to anarchy or totalitarianism is... well, uniquely you.

As I have suggested, even a constitutionally limited "Objectivist government" can grow to any size by extending its own operations for its own internal use.

It's only your unique approach to things makes that seem like a reasonable statement. I'm amazed that in your mind it seems possible that a government could grow till it consumes nearly or entirely all of the economies inside its borders and yet still be considered an Objectivist government. To me, that seems like thinking that is nearly untethered... kind of floating around.

Gratefully, we do not live by reduction to the absurd.

"Absurd" is the word I'd choose for any suggestion that your post had anything to do with reality. Only an infinitely stretchable, elastic universe would accommodate a government that owned or contracted with every single company in the nation and yet could reasonably be called an Objectivist government. And in what alternate universe would we have to go to find a nation where every single supplier of goods or services refused to sell to the government because they could find no workers who would give up their voting privileges to work for them. In your mind, do these things really seem rational?
-------------

You can construct all the airy theories you enjoy, but ultimately, with your feet on the ground, you have to accept the fact that every community has the government it deserves.

My theories are airy? (rhetorical question asked with sarcastic tone) We are currently faced with a real and serious problem - a significant number of people are voting themselves economic perks at the expense of liberty. It is changing the nature of our government and at a speed that is alarming.

What kind of legal changes would fix that? That's the issue, right? So the suggestion that you and I both shared (e.g., Government employees shouldn't vote) addresses that. And my suggesting that might also apply to a defense contractor's employees is just an extension of the same principle of conflict of interest. Why you felt the need to take that into absurd land is something only you know.

Post 18

Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - 10:09am

It is an interesting thought that anyone whose income comes 50% or more from the U.S. government would not have the privilege to vote. It seems obvious that conflicts of interests in politics lead to croneyism and an increase in the welfare state. People living solely on welfare seems to be an obvious conflict of interest. If this was a more temporary system, which it should be, this wouldn't be a big deal, and additionally would provide extra motivation to become more financially stable.

If we were to take this idea as a serious political possibility, there are a few questions, as Michael (I agree, to a somewhat absurd extent) points out.

1) Private companies. I had a brief internship with a company that made fuel cell based products. Although they had dreams of entering commercial markets, 100% of their funds came from the U.S. defense. However, right after I got there they were bought out by Ultra Electronics, a massive British-based company. Technically, their employees now have a much lower percentage of their income coming from the U.S. government, even though nothing about the location really changed. Do they go from not able to vote to able to vote now?

2) Tax rebates. I think these should not be considered into the 50%, seeing as a tax rebate is not real income (although the government would like us to believe it is). This includes the "prebate" if the Fair Tax were ever implemented.

More than anything I'm just curious to work out in my head how this idea would work out practically. At first glance it seems like a fantastic policy change. Simplifying policies and reducing croneyism potential/special interest impact should be our biggest concerns, IMO. Reducing the budget is secondary as it is a natural result.

Post 19

Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - 12:53pm