Sometimes, under pressure, people revealingly blurt things out which they truly believe to be true that demonstrably ain’t so. These slips often unintentionally reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of the real world, and represent a chance for Concerned People to gently guide them back into the light. Such a teachable moment was revealed yesterday in the opening line of the New York Times editorial on the Bush tax cuts:
The tax system in the United States is supposed to mitigate inequality.
Well, no, actually. According to Article I of the Constitution, the tax system in the United States is designed to, “pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” But it was an easy mistake to make, if you believe that the one of the principal functions of government is to redistribute income away from those who earn more of it – place a sin tax on success, in other words – in order to purchase the ongoing dependency of those who earn less.
So. Glad we could clear that up.
Cpt J, you are one enlightened individual. I cannot believe my writing brought you to those insights but they are correct. Oh, and I fumble-fingered Walter Williams earlier — he’s at townhall.com and worth every one of those recycled electrons used to bring his columns to your screen.
Alen’s reference to the Fair Tax opens up a number of side debates which we should probably not take up Lex’s bandwidth pursuing, but the principal advocate of the book on the matter is radio talk show host Neal Boortz and boortz.com is his platform for sharing the word.
As a final note on this subject, the tax code may exist to make one pay his fair share of the upkeep of society, and it may be used to influence behavior, but it seems to me it has become so complex as to be incapable of achieving either purpose well.
As example, I own 50 acres of land in a Midwestern state. I pay, thanks to tax laws in that state, $38/year in taxes on that property. The land is presently valued at about $8K/acre. My home costs me closer to 4% of assessed value in taxes, or closer to $6K/year, in another Midwestern state.
Such a discrepancy can hardly fit the definition of fair, nor can it be solely to influence my behavior since I let the 50 acres lie fallow and untouched while I live and work at the higher-tax residence.
Look at the minimum-wage bill recently passed by the House. It has an exception for American Somoa. Why Somoa? Could be that Somoa is where tuna is fished and the cost of tuna fishing would go up a lot if $3.50 jobs were mandated to pay $7.50, or we’d just let Somoa remain unemployed and buy our tuna from the Japaese for less and have a lot of unemployment insurance to cover.
Now ponder, cogitate even, if Somoa can’t compete because through the stroke of a pen somebody just priced you out of business, what could be so fair about an imposed tax that then that does the same?
It’s all in the economics.
Best Regards,
– Max