Suppose that the government decided to eliminate welfare to a particular racial group, blacks let’s say. Every other race would be only as eligible for welfare as before. Total government spending would be reduced by the amount of whatever was going to blacks before the policy change. The money that was going to welfare for blacks would be returned to the tax payers.
Assuming you are against welfare, would you support this? Does this promote liberty? I thought that it was an interesting question because it reduces the amount of theft by the government, but is obviously discriminatory (which isn’t necessarily a bad thing.)
If I had to dig for counter-argument for the sake of counterargument, it could be like a tax on being of a particular race?
Taxation and subsidy should not be discriminatory, even if we accept that they should not happen at all.
Tax credits or subsidies for particular behaviour or circumstance is a tax on not engaging in that behaviour or being in that circumstance.
Progressive taxes, likewise, are a tax on having a particular level of income. Even if we consider it beneficial for lower tax rates to be there at lower brackets, that essentially acts as a second tax on the higher income level, and preferably both should be levelled down.
It’s already happening. In Europe cash-strapped governments are increasing the minimum age for retirement benefits, but only for people younger than X. This means (if the house of card doesn’t come tumbling down, a strong possibility) young people will have to less benefits than their parents and will pay taxes longer. In short they hiked their taxes considerably while their parents still enjoy the same old benefits.
Does this promote the cause of liberty? Is it useful? No, it only increases the entitlement mentality. Those damn students who set France on ablaze last Fall (forcing me to cancel my vacation ) were protesting against this. Mind they weren’t saying “Cut out taxes” but “Keep our benefits”. That says it all.
I would definitely not be OK with this. It is hard enough as it is showing people who our common real enemy is, the State. A policy like this would perfectly play into the statist game of race/identity politics, divide and conquer. Which works so well for them. The animosity and division such a thing would cause would be insurmountable and woulkd strengthen the statist’s position hugely. It can, in no conceivable way, help the cause of liberty as a practical matter.
Curtis is right. Subsidising a particular class at the expensive of another is a classic divide and conquer technique.
It should always be stressed that it is the stealing of wealth which is wrong, and that whatever redistribution is envisaged for it, it doesn’t make it right. Taxes are going to be as high as government thinks it can have them no matter what.