Apropos Austrian Aphorisms : taxation

Myopia

thedo — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 23:10:00 GMT

\mī-ˈō-pē-ə\ — a lack of foresight or discernment; a narrow view of something

The movie 'Blindness' is in theaters this weekend and I've always found it an interesting story, since it was first a novel. I'm not writing this post to debate the socialistic tendencies of the story's narrative or how epidemics would be better handled in a libertarian society. I only wish to address, at this point, the inability of many people to see far into the future. I thought of this as I heard someone talk about a takeover of WaMu, to which they lamented, "no end seems to be in sight," that another company had, essentially, failed.

Only in this time of "crisis" can the adequately educated on the Austrian theory of the business cycle see the end. The rest simply bleat with myopia, a herd of sheep bumping into each other waiting for the sheepherder, the government, to do something that they can see narrowly before their face. The words of the Austrian school of economics must be spread, and people must know that the end is in sight but will only be visible when the government stops blocking the view with bailouts.

When Words Disappear

thedo — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 22:49:00 GMT

It's always interesting to watch how a society's vernacular changes, to see new words added and old words subtracted. Additions bring the most fuss (see: text messaging). Subtractions often slip by the way side. The most striking example, today, is the word 'SOCIALISM'. As in, while the government bails out and consumes Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who oversee over 70% of the housing market, few in the mainstream refer to this act as socialism, which it nearly well is.

The questions posed by commentators concern how much taxpayers will pay and what the future looks like for the housing market. Never is the question 'Is the United States moving toward socialism?' which is a serious question.

The economic hilarity of the situation is striking and shows a clear economic ignorance. If the government is bailing out the housing market (i.e., paying for their debts), how will the average tax paying American not pay for part of the bill? The government's coffer is staffed only by what it takes in from taxes. That is, you pay what the government pays.

Disappearing words are like those neighbors who move out in the night. They slip away unnoticed until one day an event happens that prompts someone to ask, 'Whatever happened to such-and-such?' When the U.S. government assumes over 70% of a market and achieves the biggest government intervention in too many years to recount is such an event.

A proper gander at the FairTax

thedo — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:37:00 GMT

A recent debate topic on Facebook's Politics poll was whether you supported Mike Huckabee's FairTax plan. The FairTax is a splendid example for examining language and economics. Let's not mince words: The FairTax is not fair. It is an ugly euphemism designed to receive support. Eliminate the IRS and replace it with a simpler tax code that is fair? Sure! exclaim many. No! I say. Let the IRS die and the rest of the tax code with it. Here are three responses to common arguments regarding the FairTax.

The FairTax is not "fair"; there's nothing fair about taxation — what would be called theft if any private individual were standing between you and your purchase extracting a benevolent 23 percent. As Murray Rothbard noted about the FairTax, it's essentially a "pay to live" tax: You must relinquish 23% of your purchase, whether it be a plasma television or a Thanksgiving turkey. The FairTax says this: The government must be involved in every purchase you make; there is no privacy between consumer and provider.
The FairTax is not "simplification." The IRS may be gone, but another bureacracy is put in its place. The idea behind eliminating the IRS, as Ron Paul argues, is not because it's complex or confusing, but because it is illegitimate. The federal government should be reduced, not tinkered with. The elimination of the IRS, with nothing to replace it, forces the federal government to behave constitutionally because it cannot extort payment from every individual to finance the myriad federal functions not authorized by the Constitution.
The FairTax is finally fair to rich people! No more progressive taxation under the ugly income tax — a tax that penalizes you for being more productive. And this is why some people oppose the FairTax; it is because now the rich are taxed as the poor are. The rich must relinquish more! they say. And how much more? And who is rich? Who determines these arbitrary constructions? What obligates the "rich" man to give to the "poor" man? There is no norm to establish this creed, which is why it has no answer and no substance.

As all popular federal governments do, the national sales tax (i.e., the FairTax) will grow over time. What is the harm in 1% more? And then another 1 percent? It must be noted: the proposed 23% is to cover current expenditures. What happens, as we've unfortunately seen over the past centuries, when the federal government spends more? The sales tax must be increased proportionately. Who determines the correct percentage? And is the sales tax on top of already existing state sales tax and "sin taxes," e.g., cigarettes?

The FairTax must be rejected for what it is: A farce. There is no simple, no just tax. Repeal them all!

Adjectival taxation

thedo — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:33:00 GMT

To begin my Austrian blog about language relating to Austrian economics, I will first touch on taxation. Specifically, how do people talk about taxes?

First, people always ascribe an adjective to some sort of taxation. I state this because adjectives limit nouns; so, taxes are always limited by the way people speak about a sales tax, income tax, et cetera. It's rarely about taxation devoid of limitations; that is, no taxation, which is what we ultimately should want.

Second, it's curious that one of the adjectival taxations people mention is lower taxes. Not necessarily a removal of any taxes. People just want the percent of which they're currently taxed to be decreased, not the percentage of taxes in total. There's a difference between percent and percentage, and when speaking about taxes we should say fewer taxes.

And, of course, lower taxation on those fewer taxes