Taxation Without Representation Didn't Go Well Back In The 1760s And '70s, Either
Ira Stoll points out in the NY Sun that Obama's drive for tax hikes on the rich is taxation without representation, and that isn't fair:
It's one thing for a group of individuals to associate themselves voluntarily and tax themselves to fund common services. But the more steeply progressive the tax code gets, and the greater share of taxation that is borne by a small, high-income minority, the more our tax system starts to look like what got Samuel Adams and company so riled up against George III and Parliament back in the 1760s and 1770s.Just as the British voted to fund their government by increasing taxes on the colonists rather than themselves, so the Americans who earn less than President Obama's definition of rich voted to fund their government services by increasing income taxes on the rich rather than on themselves. One may object that the rich have plenty of representation by way of lobbyists, campaign contributions, and independent expenditures, and that a lot of the senators and congressmen are rich themselves. But we still have a one-person, one-vote system.
Somebody I read yesterday suggested that if the rich have to pay more they should get a greater vote -- or all the vote -- in policy in this country. I don't want that, and I think few people would. So the answer is the unwise and untenable "bleed everybody dry!" or cutting the ridiculous and wasteful government spending...which most or a great deal of government spending probably is.
An then, as Peter Suderman tweeted yesterday from a NYT link:
@petersuderman
"...entitlement spending, which poses the biggest long-term challenge to the federal budget, accounts for only a sliver of the cuts."
via @MUGGER1955
We have reached the point where approximately half of the population pays no federal taxes. At this point, the bread-and-circuses begin, because this new majority can (and will) simply vote for more free stuff, paid for by other people's money.
The solution is entirely simple: Anyone who receives more from the government than they pay taxes, gives up the right to vote for the next five years. Of course, the bread-and-circuses crowd will never go for this, so it's already too late.
a_random_guy at February 25, 2013 10:27 PM
p.s. There are no "cuts". Don't buy into the meme.
The so-called cuts apply *after* planned increases; the resulting outlays will still be larger than last year.
a_random_guy at February 25, 2013 10:29 PM
Hehehe... I've been arguing that for years, and NEVER, never I succeeded in convincing people to my views. Bit it's nice to know that someone on the other side of the ocean thinks similar :)
szopen at February 26, 2013 1:54 AM
The terms, "progressive" and "regressive" are routinely used by the kind of person who uses "detainee" to make you think nobody's in a jail cell.
Radwaste at February 26, 2013 3:27 AM
> We have reached the point where approximately half of the population pays no federal taxes.
Sounds like a good start - I'm working for the day when 100% of the population pays no federal taxes!
#smash_the_state
TJIC at February 26, 2013 5:15 AM
The real taxation without representation going on right now is the accumulation of national debt, which taxes those too young (or too unborn) to vote.
Pirate Jo at February 26, 2013 5:24 AM
I'm in the middle of Amity Shlae's The Forgotten Man - a history of the Great Depression and critique of Roosevelt's (and Hoover's) response to it. [Recommended reading]
By 1937, taxes had been raised on the rich to the point that the rich stopped investing in stocks and businesses, putting most or all of their money into tax-free municipal instruments or hoarding it or moving it overseas.
Roosevelt's New Deal agencies had put the federal government in direct competition with the private sector in many industries and had driven investments out of the economy, leaving government and consumer spending as the only stimulus.
Businesses weren't hiring because they faced too much uncertainty. Adjustment bureaus fixed wages and prices without warning. The "undistributed profits" law had made it illegal for businesses to hold money (to invest in research and development or capital improvements), demanding it be distributed to employees and investors so it could be used as a form of economic stimulus. The "Roosevelt recovery" was stalling.
So, Roosevelt began plotting to seize the assets of the rich (100% estate taxes, etc.).
Sound familiar?
So, is this the tragedy or the farce?
Conan the Grammarian at February 26, 2013 9:25 AM
Look at the net worth of most members of Congress, especially in the Senate, and it's really hard to argue that "taxing the rich" is "taxation without representation." Hell, "the rich" are the only ones that are represented in Congress these days.
Those who are not represented, unfortunately, include entrepreneurial small business owners, heads of families, single-earner households, and the like.
Grey Ghost at February 26, 2013 10:13 AM
GG makes good comments.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 26, 2013 5:05 PM
So very true. Personally I'd like to see the Apportionment Act of 1911 repealed so that each representative in the House represented about 100K to 150K people each.
Yes, the house would swell, but any laws that were passed would have to have a better consensus.
Then put an automatic sunset on every law that it has to be re-approved by a two thirds majority. Existing laws would also have a sunset put on them as well. Same with any of the various department's regulations.
I wonder how much stuff would go away over time.
Jim P. at February 26, 2013 8:04 PM
Leave a comment