My colleague Walter Williams sent to me the following anecdote. It’s probably apocryphal, but its point nevertheless hits home — namely, too many people forget that when government acts on Jones and Smith, the reality is that people, not some mystical and magical entity, is doing this acting. If Smith is offended that Jones is allowed to free-ride on Smith’s efforts, the job classification of the persons who enable Jones to do this free-riding should make little difference to Smith.
Here’s the anecdote:
Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read ‘Vote Obama, I need the money.’ I laughed. Once in the restaurant my server had on a ‘Obama 08′ tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference — just imagine the coincidence. When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need — the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I’ve decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful. At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient needed money more. I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 50 comments }
Politicians usually strive to give everyone the impression that some other guy is going to pay. And, to short-circuit any moral compunction that their supporters might entertain, politicians strive to make the guy being forced to pay be hated.
Take apart a political speech or communique, and it's very easy to start pulling out the class envy/hatred of the other that the politician is trying to incite.
This is, I think, the worst aspect of even the most benign state; the politicians set people at each others' throats and destroy the bonds of community.
The government is supposed to be a Robin Hood.
Ha Ha
Walter Williams appears to claim that increasing a tax rate from zero to 100% is a fair model of progressive taxation.
What a shallow thinker is Walter Williams.
The anecdote is actually much more fair than government. In the anecdote, the patron merely decided to give his own money to someone other than the waiter.
Government, on the other hand, would take the tips the waiter has already earned and give that money to the homeless man.
If the economy is built from the "bottom, up" then government should end all corporate welfare and give the savings to homeless people.
Speaking of Dr. Williams, when is he going to guest blog at the Cafe?
I'm with you 100% Tarran.
Holaday, how in the world does one decide on a fair model of progressive taxation?
I've been wondering for years how progressive taxation can be judged fair by any standard other than feelings. I'd love to hear anyone advance any model of fairness that is objective and not 1) a flat tax or 2) the communist ideal of total redistribution. Has anyone in the history of economics come up with a 3rd model of fairness that is objective, not based on feelings?
What simple choices we have.
O.K. I'll advance a model, and you can ignore it.
The model is a progressive consumption tax along the lines of Lawrence Seidman's USA (Unlimited Savings Allowance) proposal. I'll go further than Seidman, who tries to propose a "realistic", revenue neutral reform.
We essentially keep the progressive consumption tax. We eliminate favorable treatment for capital gains, dividends and other income. All income is taxed at the same progressive rates. We raise the marginal rates substantially, even to rates approaching 100%.
We create tax deferred, individual investment accounts (IIAs), similar to IRAs and 401ks, with no contribution limits. Bill Gates may earn five billion dollars in a year and pay the tax on only $100,000 if he chooses to reinvest the rest of the five billion. He pays no tax on any income reinvested.
We completely eliminate the corporate income tax.
This tax redistributes much less income than a flat tax. It rather limits marginal consumption without redistributing income. Ideally, the tax raises no revenue at all.
Yes. That would be Adam Smith, who advocated a "tax on luxury" in Wealth of Nations in 1776.
We essentially keep the progressive income tax …
Mike Farmer,
Welfare is welfare, whether it's for corporations or homeless people. Both are wrong both logically and morally. All welfare should be ended as it is corrupt.
-Ken
Coming up with a "fair" system of taxation is about as feasible as coming up with a "loving" method of rape.
Taxation is extraction of wealth by force. Rape is sexual intercourse achieved by force.
Incidentally, if people were voluntarily paying their taxes, one would expect that some people would feel a desire to volunteer more money than is mandated. The IRS permits people to make gifts to the Federal Government. They actually make it quite easy. Yet somehow, nobody seems to avail themselves of this wonderful opportunity to give more.
Yes and if the waiter had a McCain tie I guess Williams would have given his tip to the restaurant owner. That and the tip would be $6 dollars instead of $10 because Mr. Williams likely lost as much 40% of his net worth since Republicans crashed the market.
"…politicians strive to make the guy being forced to pay be hated."
tarren
Nobody is being forced to pay anything. If you don't like the rules you're free to attempt to democratically change them or you can leave at any time.
You incredible selfish jerks. You're born into this country with roads, schools, electricity and the blood and taxes of those who came before you. You contribute nothing to society your first 15 to 20 years and then assume you owe no one because you believe in privilege or you think you actually succeeded on your own.
muirgeo -
You are a Toad.
Holaday, how in the world does one decide on a fair model of progressive taxation?
Posted by: Bill K.
It's real simple Bill. We fought a revolutionary war because we didn't like being ruled by Kings or Fiefdoms.
What you guys want is a return of Kings with all property held in ownership by a privileged few. Of course nothing has changed because now as then during the last revolution conservative Tory King people like yourself sided with the aristocracy.
Well the current revolution will be waged Nov 4 with guys like you siding with Kings and against the revolutionaries who will be kicking ass and taking back what they worked so hard to build.
They actually make it quite easy. Yet somehow, nobody seems to avail themselves of this wonderful opportunity to give more.
Posted by: tarran
Likewise, the malcontent who dislikes government funded programs can avoid using public street, water and sewer systems and he can even avoid using government currency by trucking and bartering….. have at tarren
Wow that's actually a great answer. All you government haters… STOP USING LEGAL TENDER (MONEY) printed by the government you hate and by some unincorporated property to live on and YOU WILL HAVE NO TAXES.
NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO USE GOVERNMENT PRINTED MONEY so stop your whining and complaining. No one is forcing you to pay taxes you do so voluntarily.
What you guys want is a return of Kings with all property held in ownership by a privileged few.
You're missing something if you don't realize that this is where we are already, under Republicans AND Democrats.
Very little will change after the election, no matter which is elected.
Boloney Sam…. the system isn't perfect but if you had your way all private property would literally be in the hands of a few. And YOU would be a serf. Or do you fancy you'd be the King?
Muirgeo wrote: "No one is forcing you to pay taxes you do so voluntarily"
Ask Wesley Snipes about what happens when taxes are not "voluntarily" paid. His anarhistic a** was in jail the last time I checked.
Martin, I still don't understand how a progressive consumption tax or Adam Smith's luxury tax are judged to be fair. What is the standard of fairness that does not depend upon opinion?
But let me add, not too long ago, I was making in excess of $300K after 29 years of formal education in a highly selective and demanding field. Upon realizing that my marginal take-home pay had to subtract 39.6% for Fed income, 10% for state income, 15.3% for SS, 6% for state sales, and being hated for my income in the process, I quit. I now work as a college professor, making less than $50K, but my marginal rate is so much better. I'll be one of those 95% that won't have to pay fed income, and why should I work that hard anyway? Now from a personal perspective, this is an improvement in lifestyle, but from society's point of view I am a living, breathing example of how one responds to progressive taxation by choosing to become less productive. Greg Mankiw on his blog today makes the same point. He has concluded that under McCain's plan he will have 83% and under Obama's plan 93% less than a no-tax plan to pass on to the next generation. And therefore, he is choosing the same option, "I expect to spend more time playing with my kids.
Your thoughts?
“NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO USE GOVERNMENT PRINTED MONEY so stop your whining and complaining.”
Uhhh, printing your own money has been illegal since around 1912, so we are not left with much of a choice. Before then, scores of private monies circulated, and the use of alternate currencies became even more difficult after FDR arbitrarily seized private gold stocks in 1933. If you do not believe me, then try and issuing your own money.
Wow, I didn’t know that being in favour of limited government made me such a monarchist/tory. Well, at least a king knows he is an illegitimate ruler, unlike someone elected by “the people,” who can oppress, steal, and murder in their name. Frankly, seeing as the king only wanted a 2 percent tax to pay for the defence of the colonies, then I would be quite happy to have him back.
Boloney Sam…. the system isn't perfect but if you had your way all private property would literally be in the hands of a few. And YOU would be a serf. Or do you fancy you'd be the King?
We are serfs. We pay rent to the political class to hold property, we pay rent on our income, on our productive labor, etc.
There is very little "real" private property, try to avoid paying your property tax, and you'll see how long your property remains yours.
Look who's handing out the (our) money to all those bailout bandits. Why it's Henry Paulson.
Where did he use to work?
Oh my, he once worked in the financial industry…look, he still does.
How about that.
We should vote him out. Oh geez, WE can't do that.
Look, your man voted for the bailouts too.
See? You don't even own the product of your labor.
Don't mind muirgeo, he's dislogical.
He always takes the opposite meaning of what you intend.
He's good at slaying straw men too.
Muirgeo, you slander me with your statement, "It's real simple Bill. We fought a revolutionary war because we didn't like being ruled by Kings or Fiefdoms. What you guys want is a return of Kings with all property held in ownership by a privileged few.
When did I ever say or even imply that I wanted all property held in ownership by a privileged few? What I want is equality of opportunity and the same rule applied to all. I want everyone to keep what property they have earned without fear of confiscation, rich or poor.
But let me ask you a question, when God said, "You shall surely tithe all the produce from what you sow, which comes out of the field every year – Deuteronomy 14:22, by requiring a flat tax of 10% was God being unfair?
"We fought a revolutionary war because we didn't like being ruled by Kings or Fiefdoms." – Muirtard
Muirduck's assertion ignores the fact that the war started in 1775, over a year before the Declaration was signed. Had the King and Parliament acceded to the Americans' demand to be treated like citizens, the Declaration would not have been written.
The question by Bill K that prompted the muirpidity was, "…how in the world does one decide on a fair model of progressive taxation?" Fifty percent-plus-one voting to take money from the minority for their own selfish interests might be legal, but it's hardly fair.
How would progressive taxation work in the classroom? Annie gets 96% for the course, Bob gets 85%, Cathy gets 76%, Doug gets 68%, and Fred gets 55% in terms of total raw point percentages.
Flat tax: Annie gets an A, Bob a B, Cathy a C, Doug a D, and Fred an F.
Progressive Taxation Plan 1: Annie gets a B+, Bob a B-, Cathy a C, Doug a D+ and Fred a D-, or…
Progressive Taxation Plan 2: Annie gets a B-, Bob a C+, Cathy a C, Doug a C- and Fred a D+, or…
Progressive Taxation Plan 3: Annie gets a C+, Bob a C, Cathy a C, Doug a C and Fred a C-, or…
Marxist Redistribution: They all get a C.
How many of Annie's points should be redistributed to Fred? Given that I have the power as a college professor to do this, you progressive taxers have an opportunity to persuade me to make educational outcomes fair! Progressive plan 4, 5, or 6 anyone?
"You incredible selfish jerks."
… said the man who wants to take my money to spend on his own pet projects.
"You're born into this country with roads, schools, electricity and the blood and taxes of those who came before you."
All of which were private in the US's history and did a pretty good job delivering those services, until the gov decided to force those industries into their own hands. Now the gov takes my money to pay for not just 'roads, schools, electricity'. Take a look at the budget of nearly EVERY city and take a closer look at the federal budget. The federal gov spends over half its annual budget on redistributionary programs such as social security, medicare, and medicaid.
Social security is theft by any definition. If the federal government really wanted to make it easy for people to live in their old age, they would eliminate the capital gains tax, encouraging people to invest (in the economy AND their own future).
Medicare and medicaid are in shambles because no one should be on the hook for someone else, ever. However, there are 40 million uninsured people in this country who selfishly refuse to buy their own insurance (which is very inexpensive), then have their politicians make me pony up for their medical costs. So in addition to this theft, politician make sure that EVERYTHING gets covered with almost no deductible guaranteeing an incredibly expensive and expansive program in which to constantly throw good money after bad.
In addition to this, the bureaucrats at the FDA and AMA do their best to maintain their monopoly on medicine, making health care costs sky rocket by limiting competitive entry into medicine. All of this results in a loss of life. It's scandalous that Wal-Mart can't open a discount clinic to treat the most common ailments that people suffer from. They've been trying to do this, but the AMA ensures that they would have to staff these clinics with WAY overqualified people, ensuring no cost savings whatsoever to people that need it.
It's funny how people who tell me how selfish I am demand more and more of MY money to pay for things THEY want. You're a special kind of clown muirgeo.
The purpose of government is to provide physical security and a neutral party to arbitrate disputes. Whatever area the government intrudes into the private lives of the citizens, it can no longer be neutral. Taxes are necessary to pay for these services everyone is willing to pay for. But, muirgeo, you're not asking for my money to pay for these basic services. You're asking me to pay for invasive, wasteful government programs that are a drag on our society.
-Ken
King or president, it's not so different in effect as form is supposed to suggest.
All governments are oligarchies. No king ruled by his lonesome. No president rules by his lonesome, they all have to have enablers, those who prefer to liver closer to the top of the pyramid than have no pyramid.
Of course, we aren't medieval serfs, we don't have to swing scythes harvesting grain, etc., but even medieval serfs had their own domain, and the king and nobility took a smaller proportion than is taken from us today.
What is important in designation of who is a serf is in the nature of the relationship.
If the political class decides to conscript our children and send them off to war, it will do so, and make us pay for it as well. Indeed, it has done that.
Of course, it can't afford to be heavy handed about it, but manufacturing opinion isn't that difficult and coming up with justifications isn't difficult either. What with our perpetual provocation of world occupation, sometimes it's just a matter of waiting.
We may be much better off than medieval serfs, but serfs we are.
"Yes and if the waiter had a McCain tie I guess Williams would have given his tip to the restaurant owner. That and the tip would be $6 dollars instead of $10 because Mr. Williams likely lost as much 40% of his net worth since Republicans crashed the market."
Touche!
Progressive taxation is obviously a good thing. So what if it is somewhat arbitrary; all taxation is that way. There is a legal age for drinking that varies from 18-21 in this country; you have to be 18 to vote (before it was 21). Arbitrariness doesn't necessarily make something bad. Something that is arbitrary is doesn't mean that it is random either. No one tossed 3 dice to determine that 18 was the right age to allow a person to vote. I'm not sure that it was a good decision to allow 18 yr. olds to vote, but that was based on a constitutional amendment, if I'm not mistaken, so there must have been rather universal agreement for that change to have taken effect.
muirgeo says:
"Yes and if the waiter had a McCain tie I guess Williams would have given his tip to the restaurant owner. That and the tip would be $6 dollars instead of $10 because Mr. Williams likely lost as much 40% of his net worth since Republicans crashed the market."
Thank you for snide riposte.
The point, as it would appear to be lost on you, is that redistribution of one's money sounds good when it is someone else who has their money channeled away from them.
It is only when the ignorant feel the pain of their theories and beliefs that they begin to think twice.
"Fairness" is a political slogan. I don't give a rat's ass about "fairness". Your sense of "fairness" is as much a matter of opinion as anyone else's.
A progressive consumption tax is a limitation of state power. Very wealthy men today differ little from the Lords of Christendom, who were part and parcel of the State. Their modern counterparts are still part and parcel of the state.
Classical liberals understood this fact better than we do, because they wrote before the U.S. Constitution forbade "titles to Nobility" without substantially changing anything, other than the hereditary House of Lords, which is only a representative body of these statesmen. There were also Lords before the House of Lords, and they were statesmen then too.
So if you want me to say "fair", I'll say that entitling a few statesmen, governing vast means of production, to organize production for their exclusive benefit, rather than organizing profitable modes of production adding value to labor and other capital for common consumption in a marketplace, is "unfair".
1) A hereditary class of statesmen entitled to govern vast means of production.
2) Organizing vast means of production for the exclusive use of these statesmen, rather than organizing profitable production for common use.
That's "unfair" in the classically liberal sense of "fairness".
You were still entitled to consume more when you were earning $300k, and I doubt that you were ever working "hard" in any sense of "hard work" that a classical liberal (from the eighteenth century) would understand. Maybe you were working longer hours, but I doubt that too.
Your $300,000 position was filled as soon as you left it, because there were a hundred qualifying applications for it already on file, unless the position was never filled because it was discontinued.
If you earn $50k and owe no income tax, maybe I have the wrong tax accountant. How many children do you have? You're still paying FICA taxes and countless other taxes, so you're still being screwed every which way but Sunday … and maybe on Sunday too. We don't much respect the Lord's Day anymore.
But if it were up to me, you could earn your $300,000 and pay no more tax than you pay earning $50,000, if you choose to consume no more. And raising children is "investment" in my way of thinking by the way. You should earn a return of that investment too. That's called "equity".
Well, I don't think you really are an example. You're exceptional. I'm also not sure you were actually more productive when you were earning $300,000. Maybe you were. Maybe you weren't. John Edwards earned millions suing doctors who delivered malformed babies, not to mention the Red Cross for delivering blood to dying people. What am I supposed to believe that Edwards "produced"?
And Edwards wasn't in the Senate then. Was he therefore "outside the state"?
I don't know how "outside the state" your $300,000 position was either.
Good luck with that. I'd be happy to slash your taxes while firing 90% of the military-industrial complex and selling the Pentagon and the entire U.S. nuclear arsenal to the Chinese, if they were stupid enough to buy it. We can dump the Office of Financial Stability too.
So how much time do you actually spend playing with your kids?
Trumpit wrote "Progressive taxation is obviously a good thing. So what if it is somewhat arbitrary; all taxation is that way."
There is nothing "obvious" about the "goodness" of progressive taxation. Is it "good" to penalize success disportionately to being mediocre? It all depends on your definition of "good". This is a normative statement. To a Marxist, socialistic, redistributionist (a "progressive" like Obama for example), progressive taxation is deemed "good". To a classical liberal, like Milton Friedman for example, progressive taxation is anathema. It is a difference of opinion, but no one should think that just because it is a normative issue, that there are not objective differences as well regarding the observable outcomes that flow from more vs. less progressive tax sytems. The reason that Milton Friedman held is opinion was because he understood the consequences; his was an informed opinion. You are loud and brassy Trumpit (excuse the pun please), but if you understand the consequences of what you are saying, then you favor holding back society writ large so that a greater level of income equality can be achieve (by making us all collectively poorer)? Bill Gates is extremely wealthy, so what? Only a child begrudges Gates his billions. Children have opinions, of course, but they are usually more "arbitrary" than those of adults; the operational consequence of this is that teenagers command lower wages than adults over 30 for example. Market wages are not arbitrary, and because they are not, scarce labor resources go to their highest valued usages. This is one of the great things about getting rid of the military draft, which "arbitrarily" reassigned labor resources from higher to lower valued usages. I could go on, but let me say again that I see NO reason from the perspective of wanting to see per capita wealth rise to say, as Trumpit does, that: "Progressive taxation is obviously a good thing." My informed, normative view is that this is rubbish.
Martin,
If you don't give a rat's ass about fairness then why did you write this?
"I'd love to hear anyone advance any model of fairness that is objective and not 1) a flat tax or 2) the communist ideal of total redistribution.
What simple choices we have.
O.K. I'll advance a model, and you can ignore it."
Posted by: Martin Brock | Oct 26, 2008 8:17:04 PM"
Muirgeo says:
"Nobody is being forced to pay anything. If you don't like the rules you're free to attempt to democratically change them or you can leave at any time."
Profound, but not true. The US makes it damn near impossible to leave. As long as you hold citizenship, you have to pay the taxes, which is fine, but the State Department often refuses to accept the resignation of one's citizenship.
While I agree we are very fortunate to live here, and in my case to have been born here, and despite our Nation's flaws, I'll most probably never leave, its not like they make the process easy for those who would like to.
Besides, where would I go? Canada? Europe? Screw that.
Bill K.,
Your comments are dead on:
"Holaday, how in the world does one decide on a fair model of progressive taxation?
I've been wondering for years how progressive taxation can be judged fair by any standard other than feelings. I'd love to hear anyone advance any model of fairness that is objective
Posted by: Bill K. | Oct 26, 2008 5:26:42 PM"
Fair does not exist in nature, because nothing is equal in nature, nothing stays the same in nature, and change is the only constant though it too is unequal and thus not fair.
Anytime a person inserts the word fair into any debate, you know you're talking to someone who no longer has an intellectual postion of strength.
Here is where the idiocy and inability to think rationally of the socialists again reveals itself.
""Yes and if the waiter had a McCain tie I guess Williams would have given his tip to the restaurant owner. That and the tip would be $6 dollars instead of $10 because Mr. Williams likely lost as much 40% of his net worth since Republicans crashed the market."
Touche!
Progressive taxation is obviously a good thing. So what if it is somewhat arbitrary;
Posted by: Trumpit | Oct 27, 2008 3:34:44 AM"
muirduck and trumpitduckling,
I know that it is difficult for you two dipshits to think but your answer is obvious:
If the waiter had been wearing a McCain tie then Williams would have given him the tip.
Why" Either of you two dipshits want to take a shot at the answer?
I'll make it easy for you.
The waiter would have received the tip because he earned it in the market process and the market process is the best wealth distribution method ever created on planet Earth.
That market process is only disrupted when dipshits are allowed to crawl out of the sewer of mental ooze that is socialism and insert themselves into policy making for decent people.
but the State Department often refuses to accept the resignation of one's citizenship.
Gary, I did not know this. How is this possible? What percentage of applicants are refused?
Gary,
There is no way that the State Department can reject your renouncing of citizenship. That it is not a comfortable thing to do if you follow their laws is true, but they can't hold you without charging you with a crime.
Since you state that you are natural born my question to you would be how did you become a citizen?
Citizenship is a question of jurisdiction.
The same question I have asked before of the Cafe:
What is the mechanism whereby the Constitution gains jurisdiction over you?
A question that not one person has yet to attempt to answer, or even consider, though it is the core issue to individual freedom.
vidyohs – Could you tell me who created the market distribution process? In my opinion, it works efficiently because nobody had to create it.
Martin maybe this isn't the venue but what of the incentive effects of a consumption tax with such high marginal rates? Why would anyone bother to invest? If my alternative is to either pay 100% on income I don't invest today or work hard to manage profitable investments so I can pay 100% on it later, wouldn't I just pay it today and save myself the trouble? (Actually, I would probably set the whole thing ablaze out of spite but we can leave that out of the discussion for now).
The point obviously being that the only incentives individuals care about are related to consumption not investment.
Vidyohs, here is your answer. Sorry to double post.
ARTHUR: How do you do, good lady. I am Arthur, King of the Britons. Who's castle is that?
WOMAN: King of the who?
ARTHUR: The Britons.
WOMAN: Who are the Britons?
ARTHUR: Well, we all are. we're all Britons and I am your king.
WOMAN: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective.
DENNIS: You're fooling yourself.
One has a suit of armor and a sword, and the other two are shuffling mud from place to place. The guy with the sword is right.
Why would anyone bother to invest?
Because there would be no tax on the invested portion.
The local grocery shop where I shop has been in existence before I immigrated to the United States, 11 years ago. They don't directly deduct from my paycheck every month, a % based on my income. Instead, they charge me only when I go to that store and pick up something from the shelf. Price is the same regardless of anyone's income level, because the product is the same regardless of who buys it.
When I visit the local Century Cinema to watch a movie, surprisingly they charge me the same fee for the ticket as everyone else. They don't charge me for movies that I don't watch.
They don't call me a jerk when I refuse to pay and watch a movie that I don't want to watch. They don't call me a jerk when I go to another Cinema like AMC, they don't send me to prison. They don't call me a selfish jerk.
"vidyohs – Could you tell me who created the market distribution process? In my opinion, it works efficiently because nobody had to create it.
Posted by: Akos Beres | Oct 27, 2008 11:42:00 AM"
I didn't specify who created it for the reason you gave, nobody in specific did. But, that it was created is obvious. Just as we do not know precisely how trees were created there they are.
Sorry Kevin,
Not the answer. Perhaps it was in other places and other lands, but not here and especially not since 1865.
Law rules here, you just have to find out how to use the law. Jurisdiction can be a matter of the application of naked power, but not here.
Oil Shock,
Your thinking is on the right track.
Consider this, as you have obviously done to some extent, If every relationship in your life you can think of is based upon one of three forms of contract (implied, spoken, or written) what is your relationship to government based on?
Likewise, the malcontent who dislikes government funded programs can avoid using public street, water and sewer systems and he can even avoid using government currency by trucking and bartering….. have at tarren.
First off, most of those services are paid for through use taxes. The gas tax funds roads, and the property tax funds schools. I pay a water bill for water used, and a sewer bill. The latter is not paid for based on usage.
So if I do not want to pay to use roads, then I can simply drive less, and pay less. I moved to the city, and walk and ride my bike most places.
I do not use much water either – I do not have a lawn to water – that urban area thing again. Now I do pay a ton of property taxes, for really crappy, unsafe government schools. Not much choice there, and zero accountability.
So what else are we paying for? Oh yeah Muirgeo, $700 billion for bombs, $50+ billion for a department of education, that educates exactly nobody, a department of energy, which provides no energy (I pay an electric/gas bill already) to the tune of $25 billion. I could go on and on.
If more taxes were levied based on what one used, rather than what the government simply wastes money on, then that would be a better system. Unfortunately, that is not the case is it.
Sam that answer isn't satisfying because the individual doesn't get any benefit from the investment if he can never consume it. I thought I addressed this in my original query but I guess not.
Vidyohs what makes you think the sword doesn't hold sway in this country? Apparently you believe law does rule here (dubious), but do you also think it rules of its own accord without force to back it? If not, how could people find themselves citizens in any other way?
I am pretty sure that my answer is actually the answer to your question, at least for natural born citizens. You asked, what is the mechanism whereby the constitution gains jurisdiction over you. The only answers there can be are volunteerism or force. I don't remember ever having volunteered.
Sam that answer isn't satisfying because the individual doesn't get any benefit from the investment if he can never consume it. I thought I addressed this in my original query but I guess not.
Because he'll need income after he stops producing. Presumably, he will draw enough income from his investments to maintain his standard of living, pay for medical needs, the taxes on those expenditures.
Mcwop,
There is such a thing as the legal tender laws. Why do they have capital gains and sales tax on gold and silver? Because government's paper can't compete with private market money. Here is what happened to liberty dollar who tried to create a private money.
liberty dollar raided by FBI
Taxes need to be paid in USD.