Wayne Root in the Washington Times (H/T LP.org Blog):
President Obama is right. It is time for “fairness.” It is time to ask some Americans to do more, contribute more, sacrifice more. But like most things Mr. Obama does, he has singled out the wrong group. The rich and business owners already pay far too much in taxes. They already sacrifice too much. They already share their wealth too much. The top 1 percent of income earners (almost all of whom are small-business owners) already pay 40 percent of the personal income taxes in America, more than the bottom 95 percent combined.
Love me all you want, Capozzi, but no funny stuff.
20 tb, thanks for the time-management counsel. That’s one I don’t engage in, so thankfully I don’t need to worry about doing so.
Politics and political theorizing are all probably tremendous time wasters. What gets accomplished in any of it? Heck, most human action comes to naught.
Maybe the point of any activity is not the outcome, but the sharing itself. Share hate and fear, and time has indeed been wasted. Share love and peace, OTOH, and the returns are limitless.
Rinse and repeat:
For every minute a “libertarian” spends on whining about tax cuts for millionaires, a minute is wasted that could be spent talking about necessity of unwinding government – regardless of where the end point of that unwinding will be.
17 tb: Simply giving millionaires another tax cut sure as hell isn’t unwinding government.
me: Yes, I agree. I would like to see everyone’s taxes cut. I don’t know any L who’s sole reform would be a millionaire’s tax cut, so this point seems to be straw man.
14 tb: The problem is that those with the central planning gene feel entitled to impose their agenda on everyone, not just those confined to a small area. Any sort of decentralization is viewed as being dangerous to their survival as superior beings entitled to rule others.
me: Seems this view should be addressed as well. This lessarchist — and I suspect MOST lessarchists — doesn’t wish to impose anything on anyone. I and probably we don’t think we’re superior to avowed anarchsts. I and probably we favor maximal decentralization of peacekeeping institutions. So, TB may continue to labor under false assumptions and conclusions, but his doing so leads him to perpetual misunderstanding.
Lessarchists wish to reduce government; abolition of the State is not our agenda, although some of us would consider it if and when a nightwatchman State were to come about. I’d think that’d be clear by now. Imputing other motives to the lessarchist community for this rather straightforward view dances toward paranoia.
I do admit that I’m not sure where and when exactly unwinding the State becomes counterproductive.
There’s only one way to find out. Let the unwinding begin in earnest. Simply tweaking the existing structure has proven to be the truly foolish position, as demonstrated by generations of conservative little-bit-lessarchists.
Simply giving millionaires another tax cut sure as hell isn’t unwinding government. It isn’t even likely to create many jobs as spending and investing by millionaires has not been the problem with the economy.
For every minute a “libertarian” spends on whining about tax cuts for millionaires, a minute is wasted that could be spent talking about necessity of unwinding government – regardless of where the end point of that unwinding will be.
Anyone for a 50% cut in government to start with?
Oh, too radical? How about 25%?
Still too radical? How about 10%?
Not politically possible?
Well, how about 5%?
Maybe over a period of 10 years?
How about we just reduce the rate of growth by 50%?
I guess we should start with tax cuts for millionaires.
14 tb: This is not to say that a libertarian central planner willing to codify a government solution to every possible problem would not be preferable to conservative or liberal central planners. (emphasis added)
me: “Every” seems to be a highly confused perspective. It appears that TB thinks I and other lessarchists want government to solve “every” social conflict. This is, of course, false, despite repeated clarifications. In my case, I want government involved in fewer social conflicts down to the point where the absence of a monopoly rule of law creates unacceptable social chaos. There is always chaos, to some extent, of course, but I suspect the correct balance point of private/monopoly enforcement of peace is much closer to the Somalian model than the current US model.
One of us — and very possibly both of us — is highly confused about how domestic tranquility can best be achieved. I do admit that I’m not sure where and when exactly unwinding the State becomes counterproductive.
Apparently, Brother Blanton does know with precision, and it is down to zero. I respect that that MIGHT be the case, but at the moment, I have too many questions to not conclude that advocating statelessness is a foolish position to take on a range of levels.
Wayne Root, with his God-given ability to lead, should organize people ……….. Huh ????? On which planet ????????
Wayne’s World!
In Blantonia, say you run an engine that billows toxic exhaust. The resident in BlantonNeighborLand asks you to cease and desist from your billowing. Incensed, you scream, “I’m not stealing or initiating violence! F off!” Your neighbor says, “Sorry, those toxins ARE violence, as I see it. Stop!”
I see Capozzi’s point here. With a strong government I could run an engine that billows toxic exhaust and bribe some politicians to allow me to continue to violate my neighbor’s quiet enjoyment of his property, a customary common law right.
Then, he’d be shit out of luck – unless he could top my bribes and obtain the type of governance he desired.
I’m still not sure that the Capozzi-style government that promises to deliver a conflict-free monopoly on violence is the answer.
This is not to say that a libertarian central planner willing to codify a government solution to every possible problem would not be preferable to conservative or liberal central planners. Being laden with 70 pound chains would also be preferable to being laden with 75 pound chains.
As for Blantonia, perhaps it would be best to further simplify the two-rule system into just one rule: don’t fuck with other people.
However, I would have no problem if, within the jurisdiction of Capozzi Town, daily searches of the homes of all inhabitants were undertaken to prevent the manufacture of DIY H-Bombs or other unlikely WMDs.
But if the Capozzi team entered Blantonia for such preventive raids, it would violate the “don’t fuck with people” rule and would be met with harsh resistance. Although I understand completely why Capozzi might believe his neighbors want to kill him, I think the threat could be reduced if he left his neighbors alone and if he built himself a bomb shelter.
The problem is that those with the central planning gene feel entitled to impose their agenda on everyone, not just those confined to a small area. Any sort of decentralization is viewed as being dangerous to their survival as superior beings entitled to rule others.
Such is the human condition. Even among “libertarians” who claim they want to minimize government coercion, the overpowering urge to control the lives of others – millions of others – can’t be restrained.
Hi Wayne,
Passing along info on the new LNCC site. It looks impressive. As a teen Libertarian in appointive public office, I try and encourage people to get involved locally and I hope eventually into elective public office.–Good luck!
“Their aim is to develop local elective especially legislative candidates and from them also Federal ones.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Libertarian-National-Campaign-Committee/185386681515061?sk=wall and http://www.lncc.org/ to check it all out.
Check out the updated LNCC-Libertarian PAC Facebook and site. I’m member lucky #7!”–Kennon
Wayne Root, with his God-given ability to lead, should organize people ……….. Huh ????? On which planet ????????
9 tb: So, if you’re asking whether one political jurisdiction should have 3,648,329 rules while another has only 3,646,197 rules, then I would ask why not?
me: In Blantonia, say you run an engine that billows toxic exhaust. The resident in BlantonNeighborLand asks you to cease and desist from your billowing. Incensed, you scream, “I’m not stealing or initiating violence! F off!” Your neighbor says, “Sorry, those toxins ARE violence, as I see it. Stop!”
Oh, if civil social orders were only so simple to lend themselves to neat, one-dimensional rules of behavior.
Here’s an interesting little tidbit on this issue. “Another factor is that many of our most selective institutions have also beefed up financial aid for middle- and upper-middle-class families. For example, at Harvard University 40 percent of all financial aid recipients come from families with an annual income of more than $100,000. At Harvard, students who come from a family with an annual income of $180,000 are expected to pay only $18,000 of Harvard’s $50,000 annual comprehensive fee. At Yale, students from families with incomes of more than $200,000 are eligible for “need-based” financial aid. As a result, more students from these upper-middle-income families are applying to these selective colleges and universities, and these students tend to have better test scores and grades than students from low-income families.”
Are you suggesting that the rules and laws in Blantonia can and should be different in BlantonNeighborLand?
Well, in Blantonia there are only two rules:
1. Don’t initiate violence
2. Don’t steal
So, if you’re asking whether one political jurisdiction should have 3,648,329 rules while another has only 3,646,197 rules, then I would ask why not?
Now, do the rich pay more in taxes? Sure they do. Is that fair? Good question.
Do the rich benefit more from the government we have? If not, why not? They seem to be navigating the road blocks to a free market the government has erected. They seem to be benefiting despite the economic distortions created by our government.
Is it fair that billionaires have more political clout than millionaires? Is it fair that millionaires have more political clout and better access to policy makers than me?
From where I’m sitting, it looks an awful lot like our government is for the elite, by the elite and of the elite. I assume the government we have is exactly what the elite want.
That’s not to say there aren’t different factions among the elite. But I’m not going to fret over the unfairness of how much the rich pay in taxes. I’m much more concerned about the size, scope and power of the government.
Most rational people (this excludes most conservatives and liberals) realize that there can be no real tax cuts without spending cuts. That said, those poor millionaires that pay too much tax might wish to give up things like bailouts and other government activities designed to prop up Wall Street.
Perhaps wealthy investors could disinvest in those rent-seeking corporations that use the government like a pimp uses crack whores. Or is it only the bottom 20% of wage earners that invest in those corporations?
It’s probably those working people who settle for low-paying jobs knowing they can get food stamps who are insisting that America build military garrisons all over the world, engage in nation building, and conduct covert ops in over 70 nations. Certainly the rich who pay too much in taxes don’t want all that.
It must be the deadbeat welfare bums that are bundling millions and millions of dollars and hiring lobbyists to demand the politicians deliver a huge welfare/warfare state.
Certainly it isn’t the rich that insists on America having the highest incarceration rate in the world. It must be the all the lazy pothead tax cheats who make $2,300 contributions to politicians to gain the access to demand more prisons.
Here’s my suggestion. Wayne Root, with his God-given ability to lead, should organize people who aren’t as busy as most millionaires to hit the streets and demand lower taxes for the rich. He should recruit former factory workers, part-time fast food workers with college degrees, and single moms with only 2 jobs to march in DC. These people know all about fairness and surely they would stand up for those unfortunate millionaires that are paying too much tax to support the government they want.
Here’s a chart I made in 2008:
#1 I doubt Warren B. gives a rat’s ass about the rest of us competing with him. I just think he is enjoying the spotlight right now in his dotage.
My understanding is that he leads a frugal lifestyle personally. And many millionaires do.
Charles Koch was reputed to buy his sportcoats off the rack at Sears (back in eighties). His liberal brother William, however, is known to pay hundreds of thousands for bottles of wine (probably fake bottles said to be TJ’s stash in Paris.) I’m sure if we wanted to be “busybodies” we could make all sorts of decisions as to whom was spending money unwisely that should be taxed away to help the suffering citizens of the world. And virtually all of the targets would be the middle-class friends we know who spend money in ways that have us shaking our heads. It’s my experience that you get “crickets” real quick when those who support “fair taxes” are questioned about their own spending on dining out, ball game tickets,
upscale automobiles, big screen tvs, etc. etc.
3 tb: …including many “libertarians” who cling to the concept of central planning.
me: Does Root do so, IYO? I guess it depends on what you mean by “central planning”? Are you suggesting that the rules and laws in Blantonia can and should be different in BlantonNeighborLand?
3 tb: Arguing only about the income tax and ignoring all the other taxes is dishonest.
me: “Dishonest” may be overstated, but I agree that the best measure is all taxes, at least all federal taxes. And the data suggest that the top 5th of income earners pay roughly 60-70% of all taxes.
So, Root’s point seems correct, Obama’s incorrect. If 70% isn’t “enough,” what is? See here:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/do-the-rich-avoid-taxes/
Wayne writes; “The cold, hard truth is that the rest of America – the poor, …have to pull more of the load.”
Wayne if you look at the problems the poor have I think you’ll see that the problem isn’t that they don’t pull their share of the load, but that the government has its boot planted firmly on their necks.
Governments at all levels in the U.S. do not make things easy for the poor. Remember slavery! Well today we have zoning laws that drive up the costs of housing, occupational licensing laws that protect the established guilds and discriminate against the poor, government transit in urban areas does a poor job of connecting low income people with work opportunities, education for the poor takes second place to that of the well to do, inflation has harmed those at the lower end of the economic ladder while benefitting the Wall Street crowd.
Libertarians should be standing up and shouting “Get that boot off of their necks!” instead of telling the poor they have to work harder.
I suggest you read Walter Williams book The State Against Blacks and there are a number of other ones as well.
Root asks:
Why won’t Mr. Obama have an open and honest discussion with America about this? The answer is that the progressive left (i.e., socialists) hate facts.
Root gets the answer half right. The other half of the answer is that the conservative right (including many “libertarians”) aren’t so fond of facts either.
From where I sit, they all agree on the principles of income redistribution, corporatism, and socialist programs.
Indeed, Mr. Root speaks of saving Social Security himself in his “economic plan” posted on his website.
Arguing only about the income tax and ignoring all the other taxes is dishonest. Also left out of the typical debate are tax deductions for government approved behavior, incentives, subsidies, corporate externalization of costs, and even government programs for the working poor which benefit corporations with low-wage workforces. Virtually every facet of economic intervention should be part of the debate Root is so anxious to have.
But if there were to be such a debate, Americans would discover that, except for differing priorities, there is virtually no difference between the statists, whether labeled progressives or conservatives – including many “libertarians” who cling to the concept of central planning.
Hearing Root whine about Obama’s policies is much like the commie calling the Marxist red. It’s all a matter of degree.
The Svengali eye routine might mesmerize some folks, but I’m just hearing the same old tired-ass conservative bullshit I’ve heard for the past 40 years from Root. It’s like Hannity on meth.
Forget about style, the substance is all about fascism/socialism. It’s all just a matter of degree and a matter of priorities. Of course, there is still the matter of veracity. But then, most of us know that all politicians are liars.
“Warren Buffet’s Secretary” appears likely to be responsible for vast tonnages of highly confidential data, etc etc etc. No one seems to have bothered asking how much this secretary is paid, relative to Buffett (who may have a simple life style when off the corporate expense account) and however many capital gains or whatever he actually takes.
Mr. Obama said, “Warren Buffett’s secretary shouldn’t pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett.” The problem with that statement is that it’s a lie.
The way I understand it, Warren Buffet doesn’t pay “income tax” – he pays a “capital gains tax.” So, the statement IS factual – though misleading.
Aside from the typical “Obama bashing” Wayne did a pretty good job with the last paragraph.
“One last thought: If Warren Buffett and his jet-set billionaire crowd don’t like the 15 percent capital gains rate, instead of lying about the facts and hurting the small-business owners who create almost all the jobs, they can simply reclassify all their capital gains as regular income and pay the full 35 percent tax rate. If they still think that’s too low, the superrich liberals of the world can voluntarily pay 100 percent of their income as a gift to the poor. No one is stopping them. Let’s see them put their money where their mouths are. Unfortunately, that’s not Mr. Buffett’s agenda. His agenda is keeping taxes so high on the rest of us that we can never compete with him. He’s already got his $45 billion.”
Nearly 50% Don’t Pay Federal Income Tax: Let’s Make it 100%