Documented: Commentaries from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart in which he argues that taxation is theft (or plundering). And that there should not be a federal income tax (because it "did open the door for statists"). No, he never says explicitly that taxation should be zero, but if taxation is theft/plunder (which he does state explicitly) why is even a little thievery permissible? Obviously, if taxation is theft, then it should be outlawed. (Note: I categorically reject the notion that taxation is theft).
Yes, this blogger agrees that "taxation is a necessary evil", and HAS said that "the government shouldn't be taxing at all" isn't what Winston Churchill meant when he said "there is no such thing as a good tax". And, despite the fact that this may be a fake quote, I presume that Willis agrees that government should tax. With this ONE comment at least. The bulk of what he writes contains NO such caveat. He rarely says that taxation is necessary but shouldn't be too high (over 40%). Instead (in post after post), he clearly implies that he believes taxation to be theft and "morally untenable" (to help people via government programs like the ACA, etc).
Churchill on Economy.
1) "For a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle". 2) "Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery". 3) "If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law". 4) "Socialists think profits are a vice, I consider losses the real vice". 5) Some people regard private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look on it as a cow they can milk. Not enough people see it as a healthy horse, pulling a sturdy wagon". 6) "There is no such thing as a good tax".
Yeah, Maybe We DO Need Some Gun-Control.
Holding a gun to Stan's head and making him pay for Phil's hip replacement seems like such a morally untenable position and, yet, that is exactly what the socialist thugs have been advocating for close to a century now. Running out of other people's money, indeed.
On Income Redistribution (Which is Actually a Huge Misnomer in that Initially it Wasn't "Distributed" but Earned).
It will always reduce overall income in that a) the people whose money is being taken (confiscated, if you prefer) will be much less likely to earn additional taxable income and/or invest to improve the value of their property and b) the people on the receiving end of the unearned money will be much less likely to earn additional income in the now and/or invest in strategies (education, job related training, inservicing, etc.) to improve future earnings. It's all about the incentives, people.
On the Fact that the 1890s Income Tax (Which Was Eventually Struck Down by the Supreme Court) Only Affected 1% of Earners (with 80% of the Revenue Coming from Just Four States).
How quaint and yet it did open the door for statists, imperialists, etc. Sources; John F. Witte's "The Politics and Development of the Federal Income Tax" and Jim Powell's "Bully Boy".
Confiscation Nation.
Walter Williams makes a great point. He says that if you were to break into your rich neighbors home, steal money, and distribute it to a bunch of poor people, you would be arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned for multiple years, but when the government does it (buttressed by a plurality of as puny as 50.01%) nothing happens. I mean, I know that the political class of America de facto thinks that what it yours is also theirs and all, but when you really stop and ponder it, damn, huh?
On the Fact that the 1894 Income Tax Bill (Which Was Passed by Both Houses of Congress with a Veto-Proof Majority but Which Was Not Signed by President Cleveland and Which Was Ultimately Struck Down by the Supreme Court) Only Applied to 85,000 Americans (About .1% of the Population).
Those who opposed the law (though unquestionably amused by its quaintness) knew that the government would never in a million years be satisfied with such a minuscule tax base and recognized a monster when they witnessed one. Visionaries (see above; Joseph Hodges Choate), they were.
[Obviously, if you're referring to the striking down of the income tax as unconstitutional as "visonary", your opinion is that there should not be one].
On the Enthusiasm in Some Quarters for Higher Taxes.
I think that the economist, E.R.A. Seligman (in a rare moment of candor/intellectual honesty) probably said it best (circa, 1880-something) when he admitted that "it is undoubtedly a fact that the enthusiasm for the (income) tax comes chiefly from those who were thus assured freedom from its burdens". Boy, does that ever ring familiar, huh?
On the Fact that William Jennings Bryan (a Man Who I Admire in Many Ways but Who Disappointed Me Here) Actually Tried to Convince the American Citizens that Adam Smith Was a Supporter of the Income Tax.
This, straight from Smith's "Wealth of Nations"; "Capitation taxes, if it is attempted to proportion them to the fortune or revenue of each contributor, become altogether arbitrary. The state of a man's fortune varies from day to day, and without an inquisition more intolerable than any tax, and renewed at least once every year, can only be guessed at. His assessment , therefore, must in most cases depend upon the good or bad humour of his assessors, and must, therefore, be altogether arbitrary and uncertain.
An inquisition into every man's private circumstances, and an inquisition which, in order to accommodate the tax to them, watched over all the fluctuations of his fortune, would be a source of such continual and endless vexation as no people could support".
Well said, Adam. Well said (and, yes, he was clearly wrong about that last part in that the average Joe of today has no problem whatsoever in taxation as long as it doesn't pertain to him).
On the Fact that (According to Michael Tanner's Disturbing Book, "Going for Broke") You Could Literally Confiscate Every Penny of Wealth from the People Making $1,000,000 a Year and it Still Wouldn't Eliminate the National Debt and it Wouldn't Even Make a Tiny Dent in the $70,000,000,000,000 in Unfunded Liabilities.
Choke on that, Michael Moore (the fact that idiots like this are always suggesting that we can "tax-the-rich" our way out of debt and into prosperity). P.S. And of course this would be a one shot deal in that nobody in his or her right mind would ever want to accumulate wealth in that the government would simply steal it from you.
On a Rich Person Not Sharing His Money with a Poor Person Versus the Government Holding a Gun to that Rich Person's Head Forcing Him to Share it.
So, what's more immoral?
On the Length to Which Our Government Will Go to Pacify the Undifferentiated Masses by Mulcting the Few/Placate the Envious by Pilfering from Those Who They Envy.
I guess that it depends upon who's in charge of that government. If it's Sanders, Frank, or Warren, we're probably talking Ron Jeremy length here with the Road to Serfdom rapidly morphing into a super-highway.
On Voting for Somebody Because They Promised to Confiscate Property from One Person and Give it to You.
Has it really come down to that? I mean, are we that desperate and pitiful now?
On the Concept that One Person Stealing from Another Is Wrong but that if Enough People Vote on it it Isn't Wrong.
I guess that we're simply not supposed to think about it that way, 'cause if we did...
On the Fact that (According to Kyle Longley's Biography on Al Gore Sr.) JFK Would Routinely Refer to Senator Gore as a "Son of a Bitch".
It appears that Mr. Kennedy had no use for leftist jerks like Gore who always played the class-warfare card and who constantly referred to his tax-cut proposal as a "bonanza for fat-cats", and good for him, I say (the fact that statists like Gore apparently think that they have a God-given right other people's livelihoods and need quite frankly to be put in their place by those who think otherwise).
H.L. Mencken on Pure Democracy.
"Democracy makes it possible for the demagogue to to inflame the childish imagination of the masses by virtue of his talent for nonsense". And, yes, as usual, Mencken nails it; the fact that a behavior (i.e., stealing) which under any other circumstances would be seen as a vice and immoral suddenly becoming a virtue when a sufficient number of people vote on it.
On Why an Individual Would Want Something that Had to Be Ripped Out of Somebody Else's Pocket, Frog-Marched Over to Him (or Her) Via Bayonet-Point, and Dropped at His (or Her) Doorstep.
A lack of pride, intelligence, self-confidence, and work-ethic (the raw materials of the collectivist) would be my guess.
On the Percentage of My Neighbor's Take-Home-Pay that I'm Entitled to.
The correct answer of course is zero... unless, UNLESS, that neighbor happens to be Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, and then I want it all, every bit.
[Actually, Warren and Sanders agree that Willis is entitled to zero percent of his neighbor's take home pay. Because taxation isn't a direct transfer from one person to another. Or from your neighbor to you. Idiot].
On the Leftist Concept of Coerced Generosity.
Yeah, I kinda think that they're missing the point here. Big time.
| Posts that link here [DSB #44] What Rightwingers & Libertarians Mean When They Use The Words "Freedom" & "Liberty" (Thom Hartmann Rant #9) 5/21/2016. |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are not moderated.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.