lines in the sand

What Libertarians Should Like About The Fair Tax

Many libertarians oppose the FairTax, feeling it doesn't go far enough toward the goal of eliminating taxes altogether.  That would be fine if it were mainly a tax plan, but it goes to great lengths to avoid affecting tax revenues any more than necessary.

So why change the tax system if it doesn't change the taxes?  Because it enhances liberty.

It does this in several ways:

It virtually eliminates the collection of personal and business information that the government presently engages in for taxation purposes
It makes taxes visible
It reduces the opportunities for government to manipulate personal and business behavior
It eliminates most of the peripheral costs of compliance
It gives taxpayers more control over how much tax they pay

The government collects a staggering amount of information to levy taxes. For personal income taxes it wants to know how much money you make, of course, what your marital status is, how you invest your money, who you donate money to, and scads of other information that should be none of the government's business.  And if you have a business, it's even worse: how much you paid each employee, what kind of equipment you have and when you bought it, how far do your employees drive for business.  You may even have to keep two sets of books, one for financial purposes and one for tax calculations.

The FairTax requires none of this.

The tax would be visible on each sales receipt. Currently about 22% of each sale of new merchandise or services goes to cover various Federal taxes that have been incurred to produce that item.  Under the FairTax, none of these taxes would be hidden in the production process but would be calculated, displayed, and collected at the point of sale.  The taxpayer is then armed with more complete knowledge of what his government is costing him.

Manipulating the citizenry is what most of the present tax code is about. It is full of incentives for some behaviors and penalties for others.  While there is some danger of that in any taxation method, starting fresh with a simple, transparent approach would make it easier to guard against.

Complying with the present tax code is virtually impossible. Filing a tax return is so daunting that helping individuals do it is a multibillion dollar industry, and businesses spend even more.  With the FairTax, the only question is whether the transaction is taxable. If it is, then include the tax.  It is no more complicated than the sales tax that most states already impose.

Since sales of used items are't taxed, it's possible for a person to pay virtually no tax if he restricts purchases to them, especially the large ones like houses and cars.  (I'll have to admit that buying some things used, like food or toilet paper, may not be attractive.)

I happen to agree with those who think the only fair tax is no tax, but demanding an all or nothing approach assures that the only movement will be towards more.  It's unfortunate that promoters chose the name FairTax, since such a subjective term makes an easy target.

While this scheme does nothing directly to change taxing or spending, it does much to promote individual freedom and liberty.  And by making the tax burden more visible, it can help create support for decreasing rather than increasing spending.

Grab Bob Barr's Coattails

Link: Townhall.com::Bob Barr Enters the Race::By William Rusher.

So it seems very likely that, come November, conservatives will find on their ballots not only the names of McCain and assorted liberals but that of a staunch fellow conservative resolutely opposed to big federal spending and military involvement in the Middle East. Most will realize, of course, that Barr has no chance whatsoever of actually becoming president. His role, therefore, is inevitably that of a spoiler -- a person whose only serious function might be to put Obama in the White House. That will be more than enough to turn most conservative voters against him. But a few -- perhaps a dangerously sizeable few -- will vote for Barr.

Barr, of course, knows all this, and he admits that his real hope, strategically, is "to strengthen the ability of the Libertarian Party to be a permanent, viable force in American politics."

Which is all very well, but it's a high price to pay for four or eight years of Obama as president of the United States.

I don't know if the price is that high.  With Obama on the left and Barr on the right, the real issue for conservatives is which one is McCain closer to.   Many may see the race as Barr vs. McBama.  Could helping McCain win be too high a price to keep Obama out?

Of course Barr still won't win, but Libertarians could use his relatively high profile candidacy to seek net gains in other ways.  Republicans have recently lost several Congressional seats in interim elections that were thought safe.  Voters obviously wanted "change" even if the only other choice was a Democrat.  What if there had been another option in those races? 

The party should take advantage of a high profile Libertarian presence on the presidential ballot, and go all out to win local, state, and even congressional races.  Many conservatives not ready to make the leap to a Democratic candidate in their districts might find a Libertarian more palatable than either.  If at all successful, winning a handful of seats could give it real power as a swing vote on many issues.

A spot on the presidential ballot is fine, but the essence of libertarianism is bottom up, not top down.

 

xkcd Cooks!

Hash browns

Suspect Diagnosis

James Taranto pointed this out in Toronto's Globe and Mail:

More than 100 Canadian women with high-risk pregnancies have been sent to United States hospitals over the past year – in what a doctors' group attributes to the lack of a national birthing plan.

Given that the system these women are being sent to also lacks a "national birthing plan", the doctor's group's diagnosis may not be accurate.  In fact, they said, "the problem is due to bed closings that took place almost a decade ago, the absence of a national birthing initiative and too few staff," implying mistakes on the part of the system that does exist.

The advantage of not having a "national plan" is seen when a local hospital, the bottom tier of the system, decides to close beds and or reduce staff.  It only affects its own clients, who can usually find nearby alternatives quite easily.  But when such a decision is made at the top of the system, it affects everyone and alternatives exist only for those who can leave the country.

Reaping what you sow

dispatches from TJICistan.

You delegate to the State the power to restrict your neighbor’s behavior…and then the state uses that power to restrict your behavior!?!?!

Oh noz!!!

Geekery

I just took a database class during which the instructor tried to tell a joke. He started telling how Noah took two copies of every animal aboard the ark.  I though, "What a geek!  Surely he meant two instances."

Guess it takes one to know one.

Veep choice is important

Steve Browne.

Maybe our best hope is that McCain chooses a decent running mate.

How about John Bolton?

I don't plan to vote for McCain if I can help it, but that could cause me to reconsider.