I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it is possible.
Milton Friedman
[It improves the economy, improves the conditions of the individual, and increases freedom.—Joe]
The View From North Central Idaho
Ramblings on explosives, guns, politics, and sex by a redneck Idaho farm boy who became a software engineer living near Seattle.
Likewise, put me down for repealing laws under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it is possible – if you can get enough people in our current legislative system to agree that a law was a bad idea, it should not be there.
I like Milton Friedman’s ideas for the most part, but I think a simplistic version of this statement has caused a lot of problems for the cause of actually reducing the scope of government. First, we’ve often done the always popular part, the tax cut, before laying out how we’re gonna do the hard part, cutting spending. So we’ve been borrowing instead. Worst, we’ve convinced many people that they can have it both ways, big government and low taxes. Until recently with Tea Party movement, I don’t think there has been a widespread realization that borrowing is essentially deferred taxation. Second, much of our reduction in taxation is actually in the form of various special deductions for whatever the government thinks is good idea. So our tax code gets ever more complicated, and many deductions have the support of this or that interest group, so it’s difficult to get rid of them even though the American taxpayer would probably be better off with less deductions and lower overall rates.
Often the complexity of sorting through all the crap to ensure compliance is more expensive than the actual tax. Anyone who’s owned a business of any size can attest to that. I further assert that that is precisely the intent. As often as not, a business or organization will forgo a project rather than be subject to the minefield of restrictions, requirements and exposure to liability. Business is risky enough by nature, without any of the government-created disincentives and encumbrances.
At this point in our self destruction as a society, we’re entering the phase of late-stage, chronic sclerosis of the economy.
bombloader; Being far off to the wrong side of the Laffer curve, tax cuts should not be conflated with lower revenue. It’s just the opposite. For example; would you rather have 60% of a billion or 5% of 20 trillion? That’s the sort of question we’re facing (or failing to face). Even that does not address the core issues of property rights and the morbid effects of government over-reach.
The Republicans, meanwhile, are still trying to figure out what it is that they should pretend to believe.
I would take Milton Friedman’s ideas a step further: much has been said about how lowering taxes increases revenue; I, however, take this as a sign that we are taxed too much. We need to cut taxes until we significantly lower revenue.
Oh, and I agree with bombloader: we disparately need to cut spending! Let’s start with a 25% across-the-board tax cut, and then figure out what do to from there. Here’s a hint of where to go next: We don’t need subsidies–for anything! If you can’t do it without a government paycheck, you shouldn’t be doing it at all.