The Government Steals, Then Calls It 'Taxes'

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Lue C Fur, Sep 29, 2010.

  1. Lue C Fur

    Lue C Fur Evil member

    Progressives want to raise taxes on individuals who make more than $200,000 a year because they say it's wrong for the rich to be "given" more money. Sunday's New York Times carries a cartoon showing Uncle Sam handing money to a fat cat. They just don't get it.
    As I've said before, a tax cut is not a handout. It simply means government steals less. What progressives want to do is take money from some -- by force -- and spend it on others. It sounds less noble when plainly stated.
    That's the moral side of the matter. There's a practical side, too. Taxes discourage wealth creation. That hurts everyone, the lower end of the income scale most of all. An economy that, through freedom, encourages the production of wealth raises the living standards of lower-income people as well as everyone else.
    A free society is not a zero-sum game in which every gain is offset by someone's loss. As long as government keeps its thumb off the scales, the "makers" who get rich do so by making others better off. (When the government allocates capital or creates barriers to competition, all bets are off.)
    Of course, this is not the prevailing view among the intelligentsia. Columbia University Professor Marc Lamont Hill tells me, "Those who have more should pay more."
    But is there a point where they stop producing wealth or leave altogether?
    "The rich have always cried wolf like that," Hill says.
    But the wolf is here. Maryland created a special tax on rich people that was supposed to bring in $106 million. Instead, the state lost $257 million.
    Former Gov. Robert Ehrlich, who is running again for his old job, says: "It reminds me of Charlie Brown. Charlie Brown was always surprised when Lucy pulled the football away. And they're always surprised in Washington and state capitals when the dollars never come in."
    Some of Maryland's rich left the state. "They're out of here. These people aren't stupid," Ehrlich says.
    New York billionaire Tom Golisano isn't stupid, either. With $3,000 and one employee, he started a business that processes paychecks for companies. He created 13,000 jobs.
    Then New York state hiked the income tax on millionaires.
    "It was the straw that broke the camel's back," he says. "Not that I like to throw the number around, but my personal income tax last year would've been $13,800 a day. Would you like to write a check for $13,800 a day to a state government, as opposed to moving to another state where there's no state income tax or very low state income tax?
    He established residence in Florida, which has no personal income tax.
    Now Gov. David Paterson may have even seen the light.
    "We projected that we would get $4 billion, and we actually got well short of it," he says.
    Art Laffer, the economist who has a curve illustrating this point named after him, isn't surprised.
    "It's just economics," he says. "People don't work to pay taxes. People work to get what they can after tax. They'll change where they earn their income. They'll change how they earn their income. They'll change how much they earn, when they receive the income. They'll change all of those things to minimize taxes."
    We can see it in the statistics. In 1960, federal revenues were 18.6 percent of total output. Over the next 50 years, that percentage has rarely exceeded 20 percent or fallen below 17 percent. As Laffer says, people adjust their activities to the tax burden.
    Donald Trump, who knows something about making money, says of course the rich will leave when hit with higher taxes. "I know these people," he told me. "They're international people. Whether they live here or live in a place like Switzerland doesn't really matter to them."
    You haven't left, I told him.
    "I haven't left yet. ... Look, the rich people are going to leave. And other people are going to leave. You're going to end up with lots of people that don't produce. And then that's the spiral. That's the end."
    And that's another good reason for us to get on with reducing the size of government.
  2. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member


    I agree with the premise of the title but turning around and going backwards, at what level in tax reduction is it no longer theft and then completely and morally justified?
  3. Lue C Fur

    Lue C Fur Evil member

    Good question that i cant answer but im not fully against being taxed...just being taxed more because your successful is wrong. And as you can see when you are taxed to much you just go somewhere else where you dont have to pay as much. What is your opinion or solution?
  4. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    I think you'll find yourself in a fairly large majority with your answer but consider this POV. If I walk into a business and because I happen to be in a geographic area they own, I'm now required by law to purchase goods and or services from them and under no conditions am I allowed to do otherwise. I can't look over their goods or services and then freely leave to seek another company for those goods or services but rather I'm compelled under force and penalty of harm or confinement if I don't "volunteer" to do as I'm told. Is that a form of theft among other things?

    The other scenario is I walk into a business and again I'm in a geographic locale that they own and control but this time I'm allowed to freely look over the goods and services, ask questions of which they freely answer and yet if I'm not satified, I can leave at any moment, never having partaken of their goods or services and then leave to either seek those goods and services elsewhere or just do without. Does this also meet any form of theft?

    The Declaration of Independence sez "all men are created EQUAL" meaning all men have equal standing to one another. I have no more station or rights in life than you and the opposite is of equal truth. Therefore, can equals then form a collective choosing among them a single person to act as authority and then by sheer will of numbers force another equal to comply with their wishes when it is not their voluntary desire for whatever reason to do so?

    If equals in private business who compell others are seen as evil, wicked and scum, then why does this same truth not apply to people that operate in a public sphere we call gov't?
  5. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    When it becomes voluntary. I'm thinking like a lottery?
  6. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    I could go along with that!

    The other questions about a lottery is, does the gov't have exclusive monopoly over the lottery itself barring all others from the marketplace? Or can anyone enter the marketplace with their own lottery, even compete against a gov't eg public lottery? Or does the gov't issue a priviledge to 3rd parties on a corp. nature to setup said lotteries with an exclusive guarantee of state protected markets, what others might call privatization?

    Which of these above would more meet the definition of the term "free market" and which would be nothing more than statism?

    Since we are talking about taxes, is it real free market to grant only special tax breaks for some, typically to "the some" that are vastly connected to gov't and allow a quid pro quo system of crony capitalism to exist or is it real free market to grant and treat all tax payers as true equals in a free market and make all tax breaks the same across the board?

  7. Monkey Butt

    Monkey Butt Dark Prince of Double Standards Staff Member

    I've often compared the US Government and the Mafia as entities providing the same services and extorting to fund themselves.
  8. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Murray N. Rothbard often said that "the state is nothing more than a criminal gang" and I happen to agree with that. The mafia or any gang like the State marks out a geographic area as under their control and then anyone who dares to do anything against their will is crushed. And mostly to the cheers of flag waving patriots extolling it all as an act of God's will!

    Once you understand the violent history and nature of our "City on a Hill" that once beautiful woman in nothing more than a scanky whore!

    It's sad people can't or refuse to seperate "the State" from the people and the land and when you do, the vision of the truth becomes much clearer.
  9. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member