Ravenwood - 11/11/02 03:36 PM
One election result that was vastly overlooked last week, was a Massachusetts (a/k/a Taxachusetts) ballot initiative called the Small Government Act. The bill would have repealed the state income tax and taken $9 Billion (with a B) out of the Mass. state budget. That is $9,000,000,000 or $9,000-Million in the hands of working families rather than in big government coffers. (We reported about it last month.)
What is most surprising, and what you won't hear in major media outlets, is that the measure garnered more support than anyone had predicted. While some polls showed the measure down by 25 points going into the election, it actually failed with a whopping 45.4% of the vote, with 54.6% supporting taxation. 1 In some localities, it actually garnered a majority of the vote.
This offers a pretty good illustration of just how lots of Americans feel about taxation. Had this measure been on the ballot in a more conservative state, it may have passed. 2 At the very least, it should send a message to Massachusetts politicians that raising taxes could be very career limiting. While I am not normally a fan of ballot initiatives, this seems like a good way to send a message to state level politicians that taxing us to death and beyond 3 is not something people take lightly.
Clearly, progressive taxation is a cornerstone of communism. Marxist.org lists as a principle of communism: "Limitation of private property through progressive taxation, heavy inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance through collateral lines..." Who does this sound like? 4 The idea that someone who makes more money should pay more taxes, yet enjoy less benefits, and have the same representation as those on the receiving end is nothing short of pinko communism. If you listen to people that support higher taxation on the wealthy, they talk about "need" and "ability to pay". The argument is that people with higher incomes don't "need" the money as much as those with lower incomes. They have a greater "ability" to pay. A cornerstone of Karl Marx's communist manifesto is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need."
When people agree with Marxism, it worries me. Nonetheless, poll a bunch of people, and you are likely to find that they support the view. 5 These are likely the same people whose retirement plan consists of playing the lottery, or winning a million dollars on a game show.
If only economics were properly taught in grade school. Too many dolts out there think there is a finite amount of money in this country. The look at income as something that is distributed and not something that is earned or something that can grow. They think that the lowering of taxes automatically means less government money. In fact, lowering of taxes spurs economic growth. With lower taxes AND increased economic growth, federal tax monies can actually increase. Obviously government spending cannot go unchecked, and lowering taxes too much will decrease the federal budget. (Which would be a good thing in my opinion) It should be noted that all these states that are whining about not being able to balance their budget without severe cuts or tax increases, are the same states that have increased spending 30% or more over the past 5 years.
The reason I am a proponent of 'small government' is obvious. Big Government drives the need for big taxes. A wise man once told me that "Government doesn't tax to provide services. It provides services so that it can tax." 6 So true, so true.
Until my dream is realized, all I can do is keep shouting. And keep shouting I shall.
1Why anyone would support more taxation amazes me.
2Or perhaps not. In states where income tax 'isn't as bad', it may not have garnered as much support.
3Taxation does not end with death.
4Democrats
5Watch Survivor this week. The promos show a bunch of people talking about a contestant that should be voted off simply because they don't "need" the money.
6It was Acidman.
On the other hand, less government money isn't a bad thing in and of itself. Oklahoma is way short of its budget this year, and every state agency is having to cut and cut again.
We also had a referendum this year to restrict spending from the Tobacco Settlement to the actual earnings of the fund or 5.5 percent, whichever be less. I have no doubt that some people at the Capitol found this appalling. It passed handily.
Posted by: CGHill at November 11, 2002 8:37 PMYou right-wing zealots are scared shitless that America might unconsciously transform itself into a communist nation. Those especially psychotic members of your little club would have us believe that it's already happening - and that anyone who broadly agrees with the principles of income tax and government intervention must "obviously" be ignorant, stupid or self-deluded.
Wake up and smell one of over two hundred freely competing brands of coffee.
First of all, America is absolutely a million miles from being a totalitarian state (much less a communist one), and frankly, there's no conceivable way a rational person could believe that it might really go down that path. To see this, let's ask ourselves what would have to change for America to become totalitarian.
(1) Democracy would have to be abolished. Would anyone vote for this? What would be the reaction of the news networks if an administration started threatening to end free elections? What effect would all this have on the American public, and the world at large? Can you *really* see it happening?
(2) There would have to be an end to free speech. Would the networks like it if someone tried to take away their freedom? What do you think?
(3) Private enterprise would have to go. Gee, I bet the American public would really dig that state-produced "Victory Coffee" and "Victory Gin". Do you think it's even remotely likely that Federal government would ever be in a position to seize control over all means of production?
Basically, America (together with Canada and western Europe) are locked into a self-sustaining cycle of freedom: The public are well fed and prosperous, making them disinclined to want to overthrow the regime - this removes any realistic prospect of a coup like Lenin's 1917 revolution. The regime is democratic, so that only those capable of winning the public trust can rise to the top - this filters out the Stalins and Brezhnevs of this world (though perhaps not the Hitlers or Mugabes). Politicians who are honest and virtuous at first, but are eventually corrupted by power are voted out (filtering out the Mugabes). The media is independent, and operates on a vast scale so that any propaganda deviating sufficiently far from the truth is seen for what it is and is sure to backfire (*this* filters out the Hitlers). The media obeys the laws of the marketplace, giving rival networks massive incentives to 'stick to the truth' - if any network is exposed telling an outright lie, then a massive scandal is created, and the public weed out the liars by 'voting with their remotes'.
This is "the big picture" which you're failing to see. Charismatic leaders may come and go, and sensational scandals may rock the nation, propaganda still distorts the truth - but the negative feedback mechanisms I've outlined above effectively prevent anything *really* outrageous from happening, at least from inside the nation.
This isn't to say that we shouldn't keep our eyes open for danger. Indeed, to keep the negative feedback going, it's absolutely essential that we do. However, it's also important to keep a sense of perspective.
The kind of nation you right-wing psychos would have us living in might have some of these characteristics:
The end of state education would result in a massive rise in illiteracy. Those who couldn't read and write would have a very hard time getting jobs. The amount of drudge-work (Macdonalds, street cleaning etc.) would not increase, but the number of people who could get no other employment would, and the end of the minimum wage would result in them making third-world wages. As a result, they'd end up living their lives on the poverty line - weak, hungry and unhealthy. Average life expectancy would fall. Civil unrest and crime would increase. Without any gun control, members of this disgruntled underclass would have no trouble arming themselves and causing utter mayhem on the streets. The end of all free healthcare (including free immunisations) would result in resurgence of 'beaten' diseases like tuberculosis. These infectious diseases and others would spread unchecked through the nation's slum areas. Hundreds of thousands would die of curable diseases, for lack of money (in many cases, because they weren't able to take time off their drudge-work to get checked out, at early stages when their diseases were easily treatable). However, absence of education and birth control would create increases in birth rates across the underclass. You'd eventually two nations sharing the same land - one rich and one terribly poor. Those of the rich nation could easily fall on hard times and wind up in the poor nation, but it would be fiendishly difficult for the reverse to take place (without any help from the state).
Is this the kind of America you want to live in? If so, then let's get rid of all the taxes.
Posted by: Neil at January 10, 2004 4:08 AM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
