The point of the income taxes is to get the workers to divulge their economic activities to Uncle Scam. All the real money ultimately comes from the corporations.
Federal Government Is Getting Very Nervous That More People Will Not Be Paying Extra Income Tax, but
Great post. I tried to write something like this but couldn’t get my ideas in order.
I totally do. I’m sorta surprised other people don’t. Maybe you guys haven’t paid as much in taxes as I have. The number of people who produce fantastic tax revenues are the smallest portion of the population.
Well, let’s compare, say, Intel and a military contractor. I’d say that ALL people who work at Intel, from bathroom cleaners to top engineers, are net producers whereas ALL people working as military contractors are parasites.
The guy who flips hamburgers at McDonald’s is a net producer. The CEOs at goldman sachs are not.
Also, it seems kinda obvious to me that if you didn’t have to pay taxes, you’d be able to sell cheaper drinks…which means the CONSUMERS are paying a good chunk of ‘your’ taxes.
Obviously the military contractor is useless. Yes the guy who flips burgers at a Mcdonalds is a producer, otherwise he wouldn’t be there. But here is why it is just kind of a formality to tax him, the money he makes comes from the business he is employed under. You could really just tax the business instead of the employee. It is the business that is sort of the root of everything, and all of that falls on the owner. The owner could be the worst burger flipper, manager, whatever in the store, but ultimatly he is the source of production. The owner is the root of production. Without the owner the burger flipper at McDonalds would be being productive for another area. There are variations to this (such as tipping) but ultimatly it is the business that gets all the money.
Oh, and yes consumers can be the ultimate tax payer. Usually though raising drink prices is at least for me, a very last resort. I pay most tax hikes because I make less money from them, raising liquor prices can honestly really hurt me (trust me).
I don’t want to sound like a commie but the thing is, all people in a business are needed for it to work. The persons who have ideas and are willing to take risks are a key factor in production (and so they are paid more…) but they alone can’t produce much.
Yes, which is a counterpoint to your previous point ? Or ?
Maybe I am doing a piss poor job of explaining myself, as there seems to be a mis communication. Let me try this again. All consumer money goes into the business. The business exists because there is an ownership of the business, behind the business there is an investor. That investor is putting all the money in the product, that investor is the business. He can ultimatly hire/fire/choose inventory/whatever the bottom line is the investor/owner is the reason the business exists. Without it the business ceases to be, that is just a fact. You are right in order to grow they can’t do much/division of labour/ all that good stuff.
But here is what I am trying to say, business A takes in X amount of money. That is all the money the business has taken in. It is a finite amount. In theory it goes back to the owner who then distributes it as the owner sees fit, as it is the owners business. Now since the money ultimatly goes back to the owner first the government could just tax the amount of money right there rather than wait for it to get distributed out to the employees and tax it at the next step. That is why I called taxing employess a formality. The employees produce, but they are 1 step away from the money supply. They could be bypassed by government and government/ the business could get the same net results.
I hope that cleared up what I was trying to say. It has nothing to do with employees being more/ less productive than an owner or an entrepreneur being the uberman, it just has to do with the way ownership/ money distribution/ and production work.
That being said I still debate in my head who gets hurt more the business or consumer. That may be a chicken and egg type question.
Ahh, yes. I did think that was something you were getting at but then assumed not for some reason. My bad.
I don’t think there’s a fixed answer. It probably changes depending on various circumstances.
I agree with you, but did you really just point to Hoppe favourably?
Slightly tangentally, I found it interesting to learn that out of a population of 5 million, less than 250,000 Scots pay more tax than they receive in benefits.
I would call that evidence but in reality it’s because we in England subsidise them ridiculously. And what for?
I think everyone here has completely missed the point. There is no possible method to determine who is a net tax consumer and who is a net tax payer, for the vast majority of businesses and individuals.
We know both classes exist, but more importantly, do individuals know which one they belong to? I would suggest the vast majority of people believe that they are net tax payers, not consumers, although few feel they are personally getting far less than they are paying for. This is all due to the fact that government (for the most part) does not take X dollars from person A and give X dollars to person B. This only exists at the extremes (corporate and individual welfare payments) and is generally regarded properly as net tax consumption for the recipients. And people generally understand that they must be net tax payers if they are not net tax consumers themselves while recognizing that they exist.
For most government activity, however, it takes the money, uses it to produce goods and services, and then gives them away without any form of pricing or retains them as public property. Thus, government services and benefits cannot be simply measured in money, which is directly comparable to tax payments.
For most things it does, the government has monopolized the field. There are no competitive market prices. Each individual or business can ask himself whether the money in is equal or greater than the benefits out, but without comparable prices, there is no efficient means to know. Everybody is reduced to guesswork. For instance, maybe your tax burden is less than you would pay in a free market for the services; maybe it’s far more. We conclude that they would be cheaper in a free market, but our neighbors who earn just as much and pay just as much taxes might not. In fact, the uninformed may conclude that only a monopoly government can provide such services.
Furthermore, it is downright impossible to find out exactly what government paid in labor and other costs to produce ___ . The GAO frequently rates the accounting standards of government departments in the ‘D’ and ‘F’ categories. This leads to incorrect conclusions about whether one is a net taxpayer or consumer. Let’s say it costs government $100 to produce the services it provides to Tom, who pays $80 in taxes. But Tom estimates it only took $30 to produce the services he receives and incorrectly concludes that he is a net tax payer rather than a net tax consumer. I feel most people fit into this category.
Government benefits also do not fit neatly into a time schedule like tax payments. Only at the very end of one’s life could one really compute whether they were a net tax payer or consumer. For example, I may be a net tax payer all my life until I’m 70 and charge a dozen costly surgeries to medicare. Now I’m a net consumer.
As far as income and taxation level goes, this is no indication of whether one is a net payer or consumer. Regulations may have put him in a position to increase his income by greater than his total tax burden. Such is too complex to attempt to answer. And what about CPA’s and others who produce goods and services that are only valuable due to government intervention? And while it’s obvious that the rich could easily provide themselves with the same services as government produces for far cheaper in a free market, they may desire providing such services to others and conclude that others (as judged by their voting) prefer to receive such services through government.
As far as lobbying goes, this is not a clear indication of an attempt to be a tax consumer. For example, Ford may hire lobbyists not to loot the public, but to fight the steel industry who wants to raise steel tariffs.
And finally, government is not a free market agent. We cannot determine if people value the benefits of government that they get for their tax payments, or they simply value not being forced into a jail cell.
While we can call some people net tax consumers and others net tax payers, we can’t honestly know, because we cannot know the subjective preferences of others.
Sorry to double post, but let’s imagine how messed up things get when we consider the following example:
Hank pays the government $100 in taxes. The government pays Bill $100 in exchange for $50. The government then gives Hank the $50. Is Hank a net tax payer or net tax consumer? Obviously, Hank is a net payer, right? Well, let’s rephrase…
Hank pays the government $100 in taxes. The government pays Bill $100 in exchange for a type of weapon only government is allowed to own. The government then uses the weapon solely to defend Hank.
Whether Hanks views himself as a net payer or consumer depends upon the subjective valuations of Hank. Obviously, no one prefers $50 to $100. The preferences are much less clear in the 2nd example. And no outside observer could tell which side Hank believed he was on, because Hank is not the one making the choices. Hank’s choice isn’t between keeping the $100 and purchasing a defensive weapon. It’s between giving up the $100 and getting whatever the government returns to him or going to jail. Given that jail makes one’s property nearly useless explains why people will give up much of their property to avoid going to jail.
From an accounting standpoint, however, both cases are equal. In each case, the government spent $100 and gave the resulting product to Hank.
This is how I see this argument. The regular person doesn’t believe they get back as much value as they pay government, yet the government actually spends more per person than the regular person pays in taxes.
Of course, the main beneficiary is Bill. Most people will feel disgust for Bill. But the main culprit is government, whose root is ignorance of the populace. They have accepted the lies that government services must be monopolized and that Bill would be more powerful without government.
meambobbo, in a forum format, 700 word posts are simply too long. I think generally, the longer the post, the less responses it wil get.. Unlike a blog, in-thread mega posts usually don’t get read. Just my perspective. You’re a smart guy and I’d hate to think your effort goes to waste.
This entire post basically says, “government obfuscates, so no one can figure anything out”.
I’m not sure what value you were trying to communicate.
very good points - my bad - it’s a bad habit of mine…
Simply that any parasites vs producers argument fails to acheive effective political organization because there are no clear criteria by which to determine which group one fits into. There is no point to blaming the parasites for raising taxes - the blame rests solely with the state, who are the ones that actually raise them. The only means to stop the state from raising taxes, is to doom the political and professional careers of tax hikers.
Also, the focus on taxes alone is misguided, and is what led to the atrocious Reagan/Bush fiscal policies. Any congressman or president who raises taxes or total gov’t spending should be blocked from reelection and have any associated businesses who hire them boycotted.
What political organization? I’m assuming that by the time you get to net cons vs. net prods we’re beyond politics, or rather clearly apolitical.
Sure there is. I think your argument is a little disingenuous. We don’t need to wait until the end of a person’s life to know. A politician, while he is a politician, is a parasite. The career is parasitic. It doesn’t matter if he leave Congress later, and pays a ton of taxes on his private profits. He was still a parasite at one time.
Arguments that sometimes we are parasites, and sometimes we are hosts, and we can work it out when we are dead, just serve to further the premise the state uses, that we are all our brother’s keeper, and we all work as a collective organization. To voluntarily choose not to host (or to parasite) is a revolt against nature as defined by the government.
I find this silly.
Didn’t.
Why not just abolish their offices altogether? What purpose does a Congressman or President serve, but to redistribute wealth? Seriously. Why does anyone need an MP or Congressman except to represent them at the bargaining table when the loot is divided up?
I think the point of Professor Hoppe’s analysis is not so much to provide others with the groundwork for determining which individuals fit into which category but rather to point out that these catagories exist and that class analysis must be construed in such a way as to take account of this in order to meaningful and effective.
Now, I may be wrong, but this was my reading of Hoppe’s argument.
I’m not an agorist or a revolutionary…at least not yet. I still believe influencing votes can accomplish something. They may not abolish democracy, but they can point out its flaws and open up arguments to those who would otherwise tend toward collectivism. I think this is a better approach then simply rejecting government’s authority and most of the economic/social system in which we live. There are powerful political actions to restraing government as well, such as constitutional amendment, nullification, and secession.
If the problem were simply a group of several thousand parasites feeding off over 100 million producers, we wouldn’t even notice it. The problem is that the state spends over 40% of GDP. If we can non-violently put individuals’ future well-being at risk by threatening their public and private careers, I think this is a valid mechanism to discipline many would-be politicians either away from politics or away from big-government policies. And should such be given sufficient time to restructure our economy, the increase in quality of life for most Americans would provide concrete evidence that free markets bring prosperity.
Simply put, because I can’t. Because it’s not a question of will; it’s one of power. If we have to make a presence in a flawed political arena to recruit more people and become more powerful, then that is a valid tactic for our common goal, yes? The problem is I can’t stand on a soap box and shout “let’s abolish government right now” and expect too many people to sign up. We need the public to be aware of our arguments, about why the state is an unnecessary and socially harmful institution, and that’s why having politicians like Ron Paul is a good thing for our movement. Even if he is not given enough media exposure to powerfully deliver our ideology and arguments, he at least raises curiosity about them. And if there enough Ron Pauls, most unconstitutional legislation could not be passed unless it received strong “bi-partisan” support. With even more, we could see simultaneous reduction in taxation, spending, and regulation. We haven’t seen such in generations really. This could cause a strong shift in public opinion if it brought positive results, which we contend it should.
Well you better become a revolutionary if you want to promote (r)evolutionary ideas. Otherwise, we’re just promoting the status quo IMO.
If you don’t have the capacity to reject the state’s authority, then I think the argument you can change government is not very strong.
Secession is based upon the right of individual secession, or rather the right to give and withdraw consent. It is completely separate from the political realm. I guess you could say, it is pre-politik. You don’t need to politic for your natural, rational rights. As soon as you try to move it to that sphere, you’re giving up control to someone else.
No, the problem is that the state is coercive and out of control. 39%, 41%, 80%, 1%. It’s irrelevant to the fact that whatever the rate is, if it is taken based upon the premise that the state is legit, then it will eventually increase again. Until you attack that premise, you’re just tinkering around the edges.
So your concern is that you’re more worried about being effective (by whatever standard) than being right?
You don’t have to shout let’s abolish government now. You can find more effective ways to sell the message that government is not only wasteful, but it is also immoral. Unless you don’t believe government is immoral, and some measure of coercion against voluntary action is justified. In which case …
Morally, legally, etc. I do. But I am not engaging in the act of rebellion, as such does not have the power to succeed at this time, IMO. I believe one of the methods to succeed in such a venture is educating others as to the impracticality, immorality, and illegality of the state. Practical considerations could be observed if there was simply a strong political movement to reduce the size of government. Such movements have succeeded before. Open rebellions in democracy have not.
No, the premise is that a demonstration of the benefits of drastically reducing the size of government is in itself an argument against the state. It is gradual, but the idea is to move the edges further and further back until nothing is left. It has to accompany a shift in public opinion about the state. You can’t force that with moral debates. The truth is that reducing government has not been tried in recent times, perhaps with the exception of China (economically).
I agree with what you say about secession, but I again I would think it is not about expressing your rights, but successfully defending them. Do you think you could do such today against the state?