Skip to main content

Two strains of the Orwellian world view that all wealth actually belongs to the government...

First, from Jefferson County, Alabama, where the Courts have ruled that the local government's occupational tax and business license fee are invalid, the Center for Libertarian Press Information notes that the county faces the prospect of running out of money on 31 July. In a statement of rare, direct honesty, one County Commissioner indicates what she thinks is the essential service of government:

One Commissioner placed the priorities of the County government exactly when she said: “If we can’t make payroll, only the revenue department employees will be working, to collect taxes.”


Locally, one of our favorite liberal/progressive bloggers declares all tax cuts or credits to be government subsidies:

We are taking about the cost of business equipment — not retail items that get sold to a consumer. And that grocery store gets depreciation on its shelving — which reduces the tax bill owed. A subsidy. Not unlike the mortgage tax deduction. Or any other tax credit or deduction.


This is actually part of a fairly entertaining thread that started out about health care and ended up being a tutorial in things that some of our local blogging community do not understand about economics or accounting.

The basic underlying philosophy here is that the government--or the people--has first call on any wealth amassed by individuals or businesses, and that any of the money you are graciously allowed to keep for your own use is a government subsidy. This viewpoint does, inadvertently, have the honesty to admit that the current US tax code is a purely partisan political thing, wherein the government exercises its fiat power to reward certain political groups or encourage trendy pieces of social/economic behavior under the rubric of public policy.

It bears little resemblance to economics or accounting as actually practiced by professionals, but hey....

That's an understandable position, perhaps, when you select as a blogging handle a name that evokes "the archetypal character of someone whose prophetic insight is obscured by insanity" or "someone who believes that he or she can see the future but cannot do anything about it."

Comments

Miko said…
I'm going to agree that all tax credits and deductions are subsidies (but not tax cuts, of course).

Take the bailouts: government gave certain favored businesses large amounts of cash. Now imagine the same scenario, but instead of giving them the cash, the government had instead decided to retroactively lower the tax rates of these same favored businesses and give them a refund on previous years equal to the same amount of cash. Other than wordplay, how do the two scenarios differ?

Across-the-board tax cuts are a good thing and move us closer to a free market. Selective subsidies in the form of tax credits as bribes for engaging in state-approved behaviors move us further away from a free market, while simultaneously reducing government revenue and so making across-the-board tax cuts less likely.

The corporate income tax is one of the worst taxes imaginable (since it's passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices and so is strongly regressive, while also distorting production levels and allowing bigger firms to exploit government-created economies of scale to gain an unfair edge against smaller firms) and these forms of subsidies just make it worse: while a lower across-the-board corporate income tax rate would tend to lower prices, selectively lower rates from tax credits don't have the same effect (since the higher prices at non-favored firms tend to bring up prices at favored firms, similar to the effect of a tariff).

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...