Our Unhealthy Political Life

By -
Scott Sumner makes two sound, non-partisan proposals that would greatly improve our tax system. The fact neither has any chance of being enacted demonstrates how bad our politics have gotten: it's special interests all the way down.

Comments

  1. Silas Barta3:02 PM

    Well, one sound, non-partisan proposal, anyway. "Eliminate all the income tax loopholes" is extremely vague, considering that the income tax code has to answer a the difficult question of defining "income", and thus what deductions can be counted against it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah3:13 PM

      "thus what deductions can be counted against it."

      Well, that would be "no deductions" in Sumner's plan. Defining income is no *more* difficult with no deductions than with some!

      Delete
    2. Silas Barta3:18 PM

      I'm not talking about tax credits/incentives, but about the problem of defining income. Are you really saying that it's a sensible idea that, say, someone filing as a sole proprietor of a restaurant can't deduct the cost of the food he buys?

      Because that was the kind of deduction I'm referring to, and which constitutes all the complexity Sumner wants to wave away.

      Delete
  2. Prateek3:01 AM

    Eliminate all tax loopholes? Sound plan?

    Professor Callahan, surely you are not in favour of taxing donations to charity. Are you?

    A charity payment is not personal consumption. It is actually money out of one's own hands for the use of somebody other than that individual.

    The idea that giving $100 to the church is bad because it cuts $35 from your tax bill is baffling - who would pay $65 to save $35? Surely governments can accept allowing people to keep their money so long as it is done for a non-profit cause?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah10:44 AM

      "Professor Callahan, surely you are not in favour of taxing donations to charity. Are you?"

      No, the tax would be placed on income, regardless of what that income is used for. There are arguments for every single deduction in the tax code. I think the argument for a simple, easy code is stronger, however. And remember, this is only the legal incidence of the tax: the economic incidence is different.

      "The idea that giving $100 to the church is bad because it cuts $35 from your tax bill is baffling..."

      Who said giving money to a church is bad?!

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more

St. Paul and I Agree...

By -
Taxation is not theft: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." -- Romans 13 The key idea implicit here, and the one that turned me on the subject of whether or not taxation is theft, is that "every soul" owes obedience to the "governing authorities." Now, if that is a debt I truly owe , then, when those authorities levy the taxes they need to do the job of governing, I owe them those taxes, and attempts to collect them certainly do not constitute acts of theft. And obviously it doesn't matter at all, from this point of view, whether or not I "signed" any sort of "social contract." (In fact, the history of political thought since the Reformation can be read as an attempt to find a secular rep...
Read more

Libertarianism and Violence, II

By -
I decided to move some discussion from this post up to the top level here. Specifically, Watoosh wrote: "Well, if violence is defined as initiation of force (which, of course, presupposes certain property rights), then I think Rockwell is correct..." Well, if we define cats as elephants, then many people keep elephants in their house. More seriously, firstly, violence is not usually defined that way. It's defined as, you know, violence, so that, say, someone may respond violently or non-violently to someone who aggresses against them. Otherwise, it would make no sense to say, for instance, "He punched me, but I did not stoop to violence in response." And, secondly, the libertarian usage of "initiation of force" is very offbeat. If I wander onto someone's meadow, most people would not say I had "initiated force" -- I mean, sure, I used "force" against the earth to push off walking, but that's not force directed against...
Read more