« SC2's K9? | Main | 'Mary' stands accused »
Thursday, 06 April 2006
We need some smarter idiots
In response to a recent post, regular contributor "Lee" cited the oft-repeated, but seldom true, statement that "Any idiot can raise taxes."
If he's right about that, then we have extraordinarily substandard idiots in the S.C. General Assembly. Most of them were not members in 1987, which was the last time this state had any kind of general tax increase. (It was a couple of pennies in the gas tax.)
The current members of the General Assembly act as though they are unaware of the concept of raising taxes. It's something they've never done, and they don't ever intend to do it. When some vital state need (say, keeping our overstuffed prisons guarded) is underfunded, their stock answer is, "We WISH we could fund it, but we just don't have the money." They say this with a straight face. It simply doesn't occur to them to either cut something else, or (God forbid!) raise a tax, to GET the money.
So apparently, they are much, much stupider than any idiot Lee knows.
The only way the cigarette tax increase was even under desultory consideration was that it was NOT a general tax increase. It would essentially be a user fee paid by a minority, and it would not have hurt anyone in the world. Even the people who paid it could only benefit, because more expensive cigarettes MIGHT encourage them to smoke less. Win-win-win.
If it had involved anybody having to give up anything of value -- whether for a good reason or not -- they would not even have considered it.
Posted by Brad Warthen at 10:51 AM in Blogosphere, Feedback, Health, Legislature, Taxes
Permalink
Comments
Brad Warthen uses the cognitive basis of all authoritarinism, the notion that value is something objective which enlightened despots can ascertain.
Value is, in fact, subjective. You may think a cigarette has no value. Someone else may enjoy it, or they may enjoy some medical benefit from moderate use of tobacco.
All the claims of others that they know the real value for all individuals is a self-deception, and an attempted deception of the public, which is part of a ruse to increase government revenue by marginalizing groups of people and imposing taxes on them, rather than a general tax increase applied to everyone.
At this point, when taxes are so high that very small increases in the overall tax burden produce economic stagnation, the only way to increase one tax is offset it with a reduction in other taxes. Those persons who are honest crusaders wanting to use taxes to control behavior will actually propose offsetting tax reductions. Dishonest politicians and their handmaidens in the media and academia will just clamor for these piecemeal tax increases.
Reforming inefficiency and poor management of government at all levels offers the greatest potential for new revenue to fund truly worthwhile projects.
Posted by: Lee | Apr 6, 2006 11:21:46 AM
Say WHAT?
Tell you what -- let's dump that prohibition on murder. I've got a long list of people whose lives aren't worth a plugged nickel to me -- in fact, their continued waste of perfectly good air is a huge inconvenience to me, and I would derive great satisfaction from their immediate departures -- and I'm sick and tired of Judeo-Christian-Buddhist-Hindu authoritarian despots telling me I have to accept THEIR definition of the value of those worthless critters' lives.
I will NEVER cease to marvel at the way the radical-libertarian brain works. As you can see above, I can duplicate their "logic," so there's no mystery there, but I never cease to marvel at it. I just can't see how they swallow such relativistic nonsense.
Where does this deep, reflexive horror of any authority outside themselves come from? Maybe somebody really pushed them around when they were little kids or something. I don't know.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Apr 6, 2006 11:51:19 AM
Why do you find it necessary to construct a straw man with a "deep reflexive horror of authority", instead of discussing my very specific criticisms of what is wrong with a myriad of targeted taxes, imposed on the weakest political groups of the moment?
I prefer a comprehensive tax system broadly applied, to finance a small government providing services that serve everyone, not a lot of services for a lot of small groups. That is the American system.
Too many people seem to prefer a cobbled systems of taxes used to maximize the size of government and enforce their moralism on other people, and to transfer money from those who earned it into some program benefitting themselves.
If the subject of comprehensive tax reform is too complex for you, step aside and let those of use who are not intimidated or holding personal agendas design a solution.
Posted by: Lee | Apr 6, 2006 12:23:37 PM
There you go again, Lee. This newspaper is the voice that put "comprehensive tax reform" into semi-common usage in this state. I say "semi-common" because even though it is our single most consistently articulated position re taxing and spending (so many repetitions that if the world really worked as Aldous Huxley envisioned in Brave New World, no one who reads our paper would be capable of thinking of tax reform in any other terms), a majority of legislators still act as though they've never heard of the concept -- just as most of them are incapable of getting their minds around the concept of "tax increase," or "major spending cut."
They still -- unlike this newspaper, which you absurdly accuse of "clamoring" for "piecemeal tax increases," even after I have explained how and why the cigarette tax is the ONLY single state tax increase I have ever championed -- approach the whole issue of taxing and spending by bits and pieces. They respond to THIS group of screaming taxpayers, or THAT group of people demanding a service, and NEVER look at the whole.
In other words, they NEVER do what we actually DO "clamor" for, which was stated succinctly on our page once more, as recently as yesterday:
First, we need to step back and perform this mental exercise: Imagine we have no state or local government, and no state or local taxes, and we’re building both from scratch.
Now ask these questions:
• What services do we agree that our government needs to provide?
• How much will it cost to provide those services?
• What taxes should we use to raise that money, and how heavily should we rely on each type of tax?
These are the facts. These are the positions of the actual, real-life State newspaper.
And yet you say I construct straw men instead of addressing your "very specific criticisms?" I keep giving you facts, and you some up with rants about imaginary moralistic despotism!
Anybody else out there understand what I'm saying? Anyone? Anyone? (I feel a little like Ben Stein here.)
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Apr 6, 2006 12:51:36 PM
Mr. Warthen, whose comments were those--the ones describing the speaker's fatal fantasies for others? I think I missed something.
Posted by: Capital A | Apr 6, 2006 1:09:14 PM
Brad,
My Libertarian instinct is not based on a "deep, reflexive horror of any authority outside themselves." It is based on a deep, reflexive horror when considering the greed and corruption that permeates our government combined with a sense of personal responsibility for my own actions and those of my children.
Our current form of government is rampant in its cronyism, patronage, and self-interest. Our current tax system is designed to redistribute wealth to people who either have no respect for what they are given or else have political connections to shield themselves from paying a fair share while collecting their larger share of the pot. This is the classic mix of liberal policies that give money away to people with no expectations of EARNING it combined with the typical conservative policies that allow the rich to get richer.
We have a property tax system that is completely unfair. I pay more than either of my neighbors simply because my house has one more bedroom. I get no additional services. I pay property taxes on three cars (all 4 years old or more) and yet it took EIGHT weeks to get the county to fix a pothole at the entrance of our subdivision.
Why? Because there is no accountability in our bloated government.
My ideal tax system would be comprised of three legs:
1) A flat rate income tax with the only
deductions allowed for mortgage interest,
charitable deductions, and healthcare
costs.
2) A sales tax on everything except non-prepared food and medical items.
Include taxes on services.
3) User fees/taxes on discretionary items like cigarettes, alcohol, pet registrations, car registrations,
libraries, etc.
Our current system is broken, broken,
broken. It is a result of the evolution
process that comes from allowing people to spend and tax other people's money. The best solution would be to completely dismantle the current system and start from scratch.
The only fear I have is that I might someday wake up and find myself working for the DMV... that would definitely be a Colonel Kurtz moment.
Posted by: Doug | Apr 6, 2006 1:10:43 PM
Ah, I got it now. I'll blame my four hours of sleep and what I feel is your flawed logic in argumentation as the main culprits of my misunderstanding.
Apologies.
Posted by: Capital A | Apr 6, 2006 1:12:00 PM
> Now ask these questions:
>• What services do we agree that our
>government needs to provide?
>• How much will it cost to provide those
>services?
>• What taxes should we use to raise that
>money, and how heavily should we rely on each
>type of tax?
Here's the problem with this approach -
you appear to leave these questions open to the people who have created the current system.
Why not come right out and tell us where the current system is bloated and where it is falling short (besides the unattainable standards The State pushes for education)?
Simple question:
Is the current size of the SC government too big, just right, or too small?
Posted by: doug | Apr 6, 2006 1:15:18 PM
The US Constitution designed a system which I described above, of a very small government, only doing those things necessary to provide a lawful environment for free enterprise for everyone.
It is not open to debate for mob rule to decide, at the ballot box, the legislature, college classrooms, or editorial offices, that government is to provide all the goods and services which are so unwanted as to have no private customers willing to buy them.
People who want another high tax imposed on cigarettes arrive there because it is a lot easier for them than addressing the real problems of the handout system they desire, in the forms of socialist medical care, which cost too much to permit individual freedom to smoke, drink, eat, ski, ski dive, etc.
Posted by: Lee | Apr 6, 2006 1:27:15 PM
'. . . a very small government, doing only those things necessary to provide a lawful environment for free enterprise for everyone." Read the preamble to the Constitution and tell me which of those purposes have to do ONLY with providing a lawful environment for free enterprise. Silly me, I thought the Constitution was about how a free people wanted to govern themselves.
Posted by: BLSaiken | Apr 6, 2006 1:50:33 PM
If the Constitution did not define the forms and limits of government, there would be no reason for having such a document. It is a shame that so many people today failed to receive a basic education in American citizenship, that they think this is a democracy where the mob votes themselves access to the public treasury, funded by the out-voted minority.
Posted by: Lee | Apr 6, 2006 2:21:43 PM
"they may enjoy some medical benefit from moderate use of tobacco."
Good one,Lee!
Posted by: bill | Apr 6, 2006 3:41:57 PM
I don't want to divert the discussion from the mindless drive for tax increases, but I knew the reference to the medical benefits of tobacco (or alcohol, or exercise) would make some people think they had an excuse to avoid thinking about tax reform.
Actually, tobacco has been found in some studies to alleviate symptons of various diseases, such as colitis, though researchers do not know why. It does provide them a research avenue for the development of synthetic drugs.
Posted by: Lee | Apr 6, 2006 3:45:44 PM
Brad,
I completely agree with you on this one.I don't think there is a way to understand the radical-libertarian mind.I remember another jounalist describing them as "Republicans on acid."
Posted by: bill | Apr 6, 2006 4:08:02 PM
journalist -2
Posted by: bill | Apr 6, 2006 4:15:25 PM
What mindless drive for tax increases?????
Once again, there hasn't been an increase in general state taxes since 1987!!!!!
Why can't we discuss the real world we live in, rather than anti-tax fantasy world?
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Apr 6, 2006 4:31:11 PM
Taxes need to be raised due to failing sevices and erected structures in this state? Agreed.
Can't we also agree that smokers are being unfairly targeted? If we allow that, won't a group including you be targeted next and won't there be a just-as-veiled "for the greater good" reason to back it?
Also, if we're going to pick on people, why don't we tax a group that is going to live longer? Seems more economically sound.
Somebody, anybody, agree? I don't want to go to the prom with Lee.
Posted by: Capital A | Apr 6, 2006 5:52:23 PM
The US Constitution designed a system which I described above, of a very small government, only doing those things necessary to provide a lawful environment for free enterprise for everyone.
I thought we were talking about state taxes.
Posted by: kc | Apr 6, 2006 6:19:11 PM
I don't want to go to the prom with Lee.
Sorry. Looks like it's just you and him, baby.
Maybe Dave will show up and then y'all can fight over who has to take Lee home. ;)
Posted by: kc | Apr 6, 2006 6:21:59 PM
Y'know, to the extent Capital A's comments can be construed to disapprove of the gov't's counting on increased cig. taxes as being a reliable source of revenue, I do agree. Though I'm not sure Cap actually made that point.
Anyway, if cig. taxes go up, people are likely to smoke less, which would be good for. But if the gov't is relying heavily on cig. tax revenue, then it's going to have to start looking somewhere else.
So I wouldn't oppose a cigarette tax hike, but I don't think it would be wise for the government to count on it as a funding anything long term. They're going to have raise taxes somewhere else eventually [cue Lee ranting about commies]
Posted by: kc | Apr 6, 2006 6:26:36 PM
(Maybe Dave will show up and then y'all can fight over who has to take Lee home. ;) )--kc
Only if you bring the Sunshine Band and do a little dance...
On second thought, let's call the whole thing off.
(Y'know, to the extent Capital A's comments can be construed to disapprove of the gov't's counting on increased cig. taxes as being a reliable source of revenue, I do agree. Though I'm not sure Cap actually made that point.)-- kc
Actually, that was a part of my point, exactly. I just trust the reader's skills to pick up on those facets rather than boringly, explicitly shine it all out as some of our fine purveyors on this blog choose to do.
To be very explicit, I'm surprised at some of my fellow posters who usually champion freedom, yet are willing to throw those same ideals in the ashcan where something as ugly or unpopular as the right to kill yourself is concerned. Smoke gets in your eyes...
Posted by: Capital A | Apr 6, 2006 8:21:23 PM
A few thoughts about taxation:
A particular (long term) distribution of wealth has to develop in any economy that depends on investment and monetary exchanges. The same shaped distribution occurs in near total free market economies such as ours, as well as in Nordic social democracies. I have data back to the Middle Ages that shows the same distribution. The distribution of market capitalization follows the same distribution as does personal wealth. The distribution of wealth is same today as it was a hundred, a thousand, or five thousand years ago. The shaped of the distribution of wealth is always the same, however, the amount by which the distribution is skewed depends upon taxation.
Today in the US, the top ten percent owns about two-thirds of the wealth. I've constructed stochastic model economy programs that show that in a system with no taxes at all, the top ten percent would own about ninety percent of the wealth.
SC is a poor state, and most people here are shoved down on the lower part of the wealth distribution. Our wealthy people are poorer than their contemporaries in more affluent areas within the US, as are the other economic classes within the state.
Capitalism, by its nature, redistributes the wealth generated by producers and consumers to investors. People on the lower part of the distribution have a poor chance to become wealthy. Wealthy people have a relatively low chance of becoming poor. The greater the wealth inequality in the society, the less likely that poor will become wealthy, or vice versa.
Since capitalism is inherently unfair to begin with (I can prove this using statistically equal people within a model economy that always generates the previously mentioned distribution of wealth), it is only fair to compensate by using counter taxation. Also, the distribution can be flattened using re-distributive taxation aimed at benefiting the bottom eighty percent of the population rather than using re-distributive taxation to benefit an already super wealthy elite.
Although we can never eliminate the unfairness of capitalism, we can certainly mitigate its adverse effects. The same shaped wealth distribution has to develop, but the people occupying slots within the distribution doesn't have to remain the same. For example, society may deem it necessary to give young people just starting out tax breaks in order to get established.
SC is at the bottom, so to me it makes sense to concentrate on getting every federal dollar possible. I'd like to see a federal flat tax on wealth that is in part distributed in equal measure across the population, and in part used to run the federal government, which in turn would grant subsidies to the states based on their populations. That way the denizens of poor states such as ours would have a much better chance to succeed, and America as a whole could offer decent housing, education, and healthcare for all.
Posted by: Mark Whittington | Apr 6, 2006 8:48:08 PM
I forgot to mention that in my tax system, all other taxes would be eliminated save for the wealth tax. No more property taxes-no more sales taxes.
Posted by: Mark Whittington | Apr 6, 2006 8:53:35 PM
Here, here!
Don't you love it when he goes all Reed Richards/Adolph Heinrich Gotthelf Wagner?
I can hear the elephants (with Dr. Dave Doom and General Lee both mounted atop) stampeding from the distance to assault the walls of that wealth tax elimination, however.
Posted by: Capital A | Apr 6, 2006 9:10:20 PM
"Can't we also agree that smokers are being unfairly targeted?"
No.
I'm for Scandinavian/Canadian type socialism, anyway.
Posted by: Andy | Apr 6, 2006 10:03:19 PM
