I find it very hard to discuss taxes. I actually don’t like it, when I have to do it in person, or on a blog…it rankles me into a defensive mode immediately. Let met explain.
I’m a right-wing, mostly libertarian. I’m for efficient taxation to satisfy social goals…and that is the problem. Social goals are always changing. Unlike railing against stupid market inefficiencies like barbers licenses and land use, this involves a revenue calculation, and not one that is straightforward.
Back when I was a “wet behind the ears” libertarian person, I took the efficacy of “starve the beast” seriously. But that was before I learned how the >world works. It is entirely obvious that starve the beast can only work in the most excruciating circumstances…and I don’t want humans to have to deal with pain, I just don’t want them to have to deal with stupid government.
So I find it hard to talk about taxation. I think that the former should be lower (rates) while we should reform public services to offer a consistent level of quality, and efficacy — and get rid of many that are prized. And I have ideas about how that can happen, but unfortunately, I’m constrained by language mechanics, and network effects..
So how do you call for less burdensome taxation and more efficient public services, or even less in the absolute? I don’t know. I suppose if I was a think tank researcher, I’d have it all figured out (hint?). But as a blogger, I find it really hard to convey.
8 comments
Comments feed for this article
Sunday ~ December 12th, 2010 at 9:14 am
sardonic_sob
Your journey toward the Dark Side progresses, young Jedi. Although you cannot even imagine it now, the final destination is now inevitable.
Sunday ~ December 12th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
The liberaltarian struggle « Modeled Behavior
[...] has some thoughtful comments about taxation and how he struggles to communicate the desire for less but better government, and [...]
Monday ~ December 13th, 2010 at 7:42 am
jazzbumpa
Niklas -
Like you, I was a right-wing quasi-libertarian in my callow youth. As I matured and learned the facts of life on this planet, I came to know better. If you are genuinely open to understanding how the world works, you will gradually and steadily give up your right-wing libertarian fantasies.
“Free markets” are a myth.
“Small government” is not a principle, it is a particularly vacuous ideological talking point.
Government is the only entity with enough size and power to be able to counter the might of trans-national corporations. OTOH, the alignment of government and corporations leads to the control of government by corporations – the very definition of fascism (per Mussolini.) This, alas, is where we are headed.
Stupid inefficiencies are galling, and they provide colorful examples for cherry-picking right-wing ideologues. But in the grand scheme of things (i.e the real world) are a small price to pay for effective government, and often have actual benefits that libertarian critics either downplay or deny.
Taxation is not only necessary to fund vital government programs, it is necessary to counter the redistribution of wealth from the have-nots to the haves that has occurred over the last 30 years.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/dec/10/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-viral-speech-says-top-1-percent-ear/
In fact, because taxation is not sufficiently progressive, far too much wealth is concentrated at the top, and the current malaise is the direct result of that economic disparity.
http://jazzbumpa.blogspot.com/2010/12/effective-tax-rates.html
http://jazzbumpa.blogspot.com/2010/10/us-economy-is-dying.html
You might also note that social programs have NEVER made a significant contribution to federal deficits. These ALWAYS result from military programs and starve-the-beast tax policies.
http://jazzbumpa.blogspot.com/2010/12/history-of-federal-deficits.html
The modern road to serfdom is not paved by progressive taxation, effective regulation, nor entitlement and transfer programs (vital government actions)- it is paved by the greed of soul-less multinational corporations with no loyalty to anybody nor anything.
The modern corporation thrives on monopoly power, hates competition and is the enemy of real capitalism. This is what made me a progressive. The anti-trust movement of 100 years ago was the hall mark of early 20th century progressivism. As the age robber barons has repeated itself, we can now see why.
May the scales continue to fall from your eyes!
Cheers!
JzB
Monday ~ December 13th, 2010 at 11:35 am
sardonic_sob
Niklas:
Always remember, when reading things like… that… the comforting thought that an idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it, and that a right conclusion is no less right because supported by wrong beliefs.
Monday ~ December 13th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
jazzbumpa
Bob -
Care to point out the wrong beliefs?
Cheers!
JzB
Monday ~ December 13th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
jazzbumpa
Bob -
Upon further review, I find your oblique comment to be quite puzzling.
Are you criticizing or disagreeing with me?
Help me out a little.
Cheers!
JzB
Thursday ~ December 16th, 2010 at 6:05 am
EdMigPer
Tyler Cowen turned me on to this quote from a book on optimism and pessimism:
“Optimism…is the other side of a kind of existential despair, a longing to retreat from the complexities of the great society to the primordial simplicity of the undifferentiated tribe. It expresses a kind of distrust of humanity, an inability to allow that we can actually move on from our original nature, and create a flexible, reasonable and charitable “we,” which is not a collective “I” at all, but the by-product of individual freedom. But this distrust is unfounded. The world is, in fact, a much better place than the optimists allow: and that is why pessimism is needed.”
You’re too optimistic for your own good. Be pessimistic about taxation and you’ll feel a whole lot better about the subject in no time. Just remember, there are worse ways to die and suffer than through poverty sure to deadweight loss and inefficiency.
Sunday ~ December 19th, 2010 at 11:02 pm
Ryan Vann
Everyone, at least economists, finds it hard to discuss taxes; this is because nobody likes admitting they are clueless. What is the supposed “optimal tax regime,” fuck if I know, but I do know I’m not mendacious enough to purport I do. Ultimately when talking taxes, Economists have to really on some of their biases, and non-objectivity is a scary place for them.
Now as for the Bruce Bartlett link. I find it to pointless. Starve the beast, as a legitimate approach to staving off government has simply never occurred. Tax revenues as a portion of GDP have been relatively stable around 20%, barring recessions, for about a century. Any google search would quickly support this. How can something nonexistent be so pernicious as Bartlett claims? Anyway, I enjoy watching your transition into an technocratic liberal.