RoR: Forum

Post 0

Tuesday, July 26, 2011 - 3:55pm

Bookmark

Link

Edit

Jason Lewis mentioned how the political left will focus on taxes -- e.g., tax the rich more -- but, ironically, will not focus on subsidies -- e.g., to big companies, such as GE.

It is a fundamental disconnect. In either case (theoretically), federal balance sheets would increase. You can tax them more, or you can stop giving them billions and billions and billions of dollars in subsidies. I think the answer to this conundrum -- of why one is in focus, and never the other -- was mentioned on another thread. The answer, is central control. Both taxes and subsidies can be viewed as aspects of central control. Think about this:

Assume that you are a frothing-at-the-mouth statist and you want to control everyone. What are you going to say about taxes? Raise them. What are you going to say about subsidies? Raise them. Every time someone has to come to you -- for either less taxes (or more tax breaks) or for more subsidies (or to beg to keep their subsidies) -- you get to exercise more control over them. The trick, then, is to get people to need you, which is exactly what the political left in America wants.

And the way that you do that most fully, is to both heavily tax and to heavily subsidize people.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 7/26, 4:00pm)

Post 1

Tuesday, July 26, 2011 - 8:17pm

Bookmark

Link

Edit

Well, on the tax forms, income from interest is called "unearned" which betrays their lack of understanding.

However, President Obama's income while earned in the sense of his being a well-paid employee, does not come from the creation of wealth. That is the difference. "Taxing" (in quotes) public employees is only a kick-back or rebate. To tax the creators of wealth is to (a) take what is not the state's by right and to (b) misallocate those resources into less productive channels.

So, let's keep that straight.

To reply to Ed's observations, I point to the work of Jane Jacobs. In Systems of Survival she outlines the guardian or warrior ethic, i.e., the ethos of government:
* Shun trading
* Exert prowess
* Be obedient and disciplined
* Adhere to tradition
* Respect hierarchy
* Be loyal
* Take vengeance
* Deceive for the sake of the task
* Make rich use of leisure
* Be ostentatious
* Dispense largesse
* Be exclusive
* Show fortitude
* Be fatalistic
* Treasure honor

Clearly, as Jacobs pointed out, when the Guardian and Trader ethics are merged, corruption results. Trading is denied to guardians (ideally): they do not sell favors. When they do, they undermine their own standing.

But, the Guardians do dispense largess (share the booty) which is what subsidies are. They are are ostentatious (with wealth they did not create), giving away medical care which they conquered by force. And they make rich use of leisure with their monuments, national parks, etc.

Post 2

Wednesday, July 27, 2011 - 2:27pm

Bookmark

Link

Edit

Ed:

Every time someone has to come to you -- for either less taxes (or more tax breaks) or for more subsidies (or to beg to keep their subsidies) -- you get to exercise more control over them.

My thoughts exactly. Congress loves to pay lip service to their constituents by bashing lobbyists, but let's get real, they love lobbyists. Congress loves having someone to rely on them, to vindicate their existence as someone important.