So the idea of privatizing lotteries is all the rage among cash-strapped states, USA Today and various other sources report (must be a slow news day, this has been out there for some time).
Despite the fact that it has the word "privatizing" in it, which is supposed to be sacred to Libertarians, it's a BAD idea, just like it was a bad idea when the Bush administration proposed privatizing collections for the IRS.
I rarely agree with Paul Krugman, but you have to give him credit for a great line on this one: "I used to say that conservatives want to take us back to the 1920’s, but the Bush administration seemingly wants to go back to the 16th century."
Here's the problem--or problems, as the case may be.
Taxation is the price to be paid for government. Libertarians, obviously, think there's too much of it; Progressives salivate at the prospect of it increasing so that they can get on with perfecting society. Both should agree, however, that a regression to the tax-farming practices of the Roman and Byzantine Empires is not a good thing. [For those of you who, like me, happen to count yourself as Christian, check and see if those tax collectors--who were really tax farmers (the King James' guys updated the language)--weren't generally considered the worst type of sinners around.)
If taxes are a necessary (and often unnecessary) evil, as Libertarians posit, then it is surely immoral to make a profit off of a coercive practice. Moreover, it places the entrepreneur in the position of wanting to sweat the victims as much as possible in order to wrack up a better commission.
If you are an IRS subsidiary tax collector you acquire the power to garnish wages, place liens on property, and wreck people's lives all for the sake of turning a dime off the people already being victimized by the tax code.
If you are running a lottery, you're trying to figure the best possible way to soak as much money as possible out of the plebes so that legislators won't actually have to exercise fiscal restraint.
It's blood money either way.
Despite the fact that it has the word "privatizing" in it, which is supposed to be sacred to Libertarians, it's a BAD idea, just like it was a bad idea when the Bush administration proposed privatizing collections for the IRS.
I rarely agree with Paul Krugman, but you have to give him credit for a great line on this one: "I used to say that conservatives want to take us back to the 1920’s, but the Bush administration seemingly wants to go back to the 16th century."
Here's the problem--or problems, as the case may be.
Taxation is the price to be paid for government. Libertarians, obviously, think there's too much of it; Progressives salivate at the prospect of it increasing so that they can get on with perfecting society. Both should agree, however, that a regression to the tax-farming practices of the Roman and Byzantine Empires is not a good thing. [For those of you who, like me, happen to count yourself as Christian, check and see if those tax collectors--who were really tax farmers (the King James' guys updated the language)--weren't generally considered the worst type of sinners around.)
If taxes are a necessary (and often unnecessary) evil, as Libertarians posit, then it is surely immoral to make a profit off of a coercive practice. Moreover, it places the entrepreneur in the position of wanting to sweat the victims as much as possible in order to wrack up a better commission.
If you are an IRS subsidiary tax collector you acquire the power to garnish wages, place liens on property, and wreck people's lives all for the sake of turning a dime off the people already being victimized by the tax code.
If you are running a lottery, you're trying to figure the best possible way to soak as much money as possible out of the plebes so that legislators won't actually have to exercise fiscal restraint.
It's blood money either way.
Comments