Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
"No one likes to pay taxes" Americans have good reason not to enjoy paying their taxes, and McCain and Obama will only increase that resentment.by Josh Koch
(Libertarian)
Sunday, August 17, 2008
The other day at Saddleback Church, Obama quipped that "No one likes to pay taxes." This is true, but this is not an abstract thesis. Americans have an appreciation for the fact that money is a means of exchange. It is a fluid instrument used to purchase goods and services. Americans don't mind using the fruits of their labor for enlightened (and unenlightened) self interest.
The problem is that John Q. Public isn't getting his dollar's worth from a government that keeps inflating the "cost of freedom." Consider John McCain's $300 million hybrid battery prize plan or Obama's desire to add $2 billion to NASA's budget in a period of record budget deficits. Have we suddenly discovered a source of funding that will make our shortfalls a thing of the past, or are have we passed from willful negligence into criminal disregard for fiscal sanity?
In all seriousness, we have very pressing national needs: defense, restoring economic health, reinstituting free market principles, energy independence, and fixing the Social Security, pension, and Medicare crises. How is the moral and fiscal energy of the nation going to be tapped to solve these problems if we are planning to spend vast sums of money on vanity projects like those McCain and Obama have promised?
The simple answer is that these problems will not be addressed adequately, and these men are merely telling us about their indifference to our national emergencies by promising fixes to imaginary problems, instead. It's as though a fire chief is watching a building full of people burn, but, rather than saving the people and the building, he calls a press conference to announce a new "Save cats stuck in trees" program to distract the attention from the real, immediate problem.
The original question, then, is whether we are, in fact, getting our tax dollar's worth from the Federal Government, and whether that will change in the foreseeable future. If the government will not provide redress for our grievances over problems that it caused, we are not getting anything for our tax dollars. After all, our founders defined such indifference as tyranny.
Why, then, would any free man or woman happily agree to pay more for services not rendered? Such behavior is simply unnatural, and it will not be tolerated outside the confines of socialism and communism. Further, the inherent injustice of a "progressive" tax system merely highlights the incoherence of such a fraud. It's as though the capitalist axiom of "supply and demand" dictating prices has been reversed. We are expected to pay more for more of something that we do not want.
Consider, for instance, the cost of the War in Iraq. This is an optional war, a fact that is pretty widely accepted at this late date, but, for the sake of this argument, let us assume that it is a war in defense of the freedom of each American. If the service of defending freedom is uniform among the body politic, why is it that persons with more assets are expected to pay more for the service?
This is an enigmatic inequity when one expands the scope of the inquiry. Why must the rich pay more for roads, regulation, and welfare programs? Socialists and liberals and "neoconservatives" will argue that, "The rich benefit from government more than the average man, so they should pay more. They are the winners of life's lottery, so they should pay for benefiting from America so much more with more taxes."
Yet, this argument doesn't pass the smell test. The rich already pay higher per-service taxes disguised as fees of all sorts: If they run businesses, they pay service, incorporation, license, property, and other fees. If they use commercial vehicles, they have to pay taxes on fuels, airports, roads, and waterways that they use. If they hire employees, they are already being hit with countless regulatory costs, payroll taxes, and ancillary legal expenses.
So, we have established that, in the course of becoming rich, men and women of business are already paying "their fair share" for their incidental exploitation of certain government services. The nagging question, then, is why should they face additional taxation for using government services when they are already paying (exorbitantly) for each of those services?
The answer is that we are guilty of double-taxation as a nation. Sure, it feels good to see someone who does well paying taxes on April 15, whereas you, Mr. and Mrs. Average, are getting money back from the IRS this year. Sadly, though, the truth of the matter is that you are not carrying your weight. The truth is that I'm not carrying it, either.
So, if successful people are being double-billed, at the very least, for services that are sullenly and sloppily delivered, if at all, and for a government that currently and for the foreseeable future is and will continue exacerbating national crises, why would they want to pay their taxes gladly? If one doesn't leave a large tip for poor service at dinner, why should one leave percentage points of one's net worth on the table for Uncle Sam with year after year of poor service?
McCain and Obama think that Americans have an attitude problem, and they are correct. We are tired of con men who mortgage our kids and our prosperity to fleece us for the benefit of their special interests. We are glad to pay for services rendered, but we refuse to pay more for projects that are unwanted and for service that would make a one-star restaurant staff wince.
The customer is always right, and it's high time we stopped asking to speak to the manager when we can fix the problem by getting up and leaving the Republicrat Bar and Grill. Check, please!
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Josh Koch only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Josh Koch is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Taxation is forced. To pay for services, goods or tips in a restaurant is not forced. Taxation is theft. That is the difference.
Imagine that you have a business that collects 33% from the income of all the people regardless on whether you provide a service or not. Great business! You will provide the crapiest service if any service at all and make a lot of money!
In a true free market you would not be able to get away with that even with a private monopoly or oligopoly. Example: oil. No matter how high the prices climb, we can always chose ways to use less or none at all. But with income tax, we can not easily chose to not get an income unless we barter, which is also taxable under IRS rules. So then our only option is to break their own law, stop paying taxes, barter, grow our own food and wait for the IRS Nazis to come after you. Another option is to move out of the U.S. but the problem with that is that move to where? The other countries of the world are worst with their taxation or freedom protection than the U.S. So we are screwed either way.
You can't compare legalized theft with free market.
Well, you can compare government with the free market. Government will be shown for what it is in such a comparison, hence the comparison. It is a rip-off that prevails solely because of the threat of the bayonet.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
