Reader Daniel writes in support of raising taxes:
[W]hen Bill [Clinton] and the Democrats signed the,”Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993″, not 1 conservative voted for this. Conservative Democrats joined in with Republicans and voted against it, Al Gore had to put his vote in to pass it.
8 Year later the budget was balanced and Americans rewarded these people by voting them out of office and putting Republicans in the congress, senate, and white house. Are you really surprised that same year they gave the wealthy tax cuts, the balanced budget went bye bye? [sic]
That’s not surprising at all. President Bush made moderate cuts to taxes, and grew federal spending more than any administration before. That’s sure to burst a budget. His successor has doubled down on those bad policies, so your Democrat/Republican vitriol is seriously flawed; the dichotomy is illusory in this instance. As a simple math proposition, can anyone explain the relationship between the red and green lines in this chart?
Anyone who said “there’s no significant correlation” gets a gold star. That’s from the Mercatus Center’s Veronique de Rugy. When making a budget, you don’t decide how much you want to spend, then determine how much income that requires. Tax rates don’t determine fiscal stability. You need to start with income, and work out how to prioritize spending. So is it true that Clinton’s tax hikes created the surplus?
Beginning with Reagan and accelerating through the Clinton years, the size of government spending relative to the economy shrank dramatically. This doesn’t mean the absolute size of the government shrank; Reagan was big on deficit spending (especially defense) and Clinton certainly didn’t slash programs. A combination of fiscal restraint and a booming economy is a recipe for success. Two points: no administration except Clinton’s raised as much as they spent, and one must remember the boom period he presided over has significant effect on this chart. To Daniel’s point, cutting taxes without cutting spending, like GWB did, is a mistake.
The point is that taxes are a symptom, not the real problem. Spending is (and has been) our problem all along. The size and scope of our government services needs to reflect our means to pay for them, just like anything else. Our politicians, both democrat and republican, want to sell us Ferraris, when we can just about afford Corollas.
Image courtesy TLC
I’ve been watching Sister Wives with my roommates every Sunday evening the past few weeks, and instead of solving all of the questions that I had about that lifestyle, it’s opened up even more questions. I’m sure if I did some vigorous googling I could come up with some answers, but still be left with more.
Sister Wives is a show on TLC which follows the lives of four women and their relationship and family with one man. The first wife is the only legal wife, but all of them live together in one house, each with separate living units (kitchen, bedrooms, living rooms, etc.). Heck, it could be called an apartment complex. The husband spends every fourth night with each of the wives to make it fair. He has no personal space of his own for this reason. There are a total of sixteen kids between the four of them, and they’re not done having children. Only one of the wives did not grow up in a polygamist family.
To sort of synthesize my frame of view with some of the questions I’m asking, know that I find it odd that in order to be recognized as “officially” married, you must have a slip of paper from the state (note: this entire concept is a post for another time). I also think it’s odd that the tax system treats married people (both jointly and separately filing) differently from single filers, etc. If you’re interested in the sister wives, read more after the jump. Read the rest
What’s the motivating principle behind liberalism? Or conservatism? Libertarians can boil it down to ‘liberty’, and explain adherence to that principle in academic, empirical, philosophical, and practical terms.
But as much as I talk about the problems with libs and cons, in some ways I’m really talking about my problems with my view of their philosophies. I’d like to hear self-stylized liberals and conservatives explain in their own words what it’s all about. If it’s easier for you, what was your epiphany moment that drove you one way or the other?
Also, to avoid a giant clusterfuck any comment over 150 words gets deleted. No exceptions. Hayek himself could rise from the dead and write a 151 comment that made tears come to my eyes and song lift up my heart, and I’d still spam it.
Reader Alex writes:
Would libertarians approve of a carbon tax if it was accompanied with an abolition or 50 year suspension of the federal income tax?
I won’t pretend to speak for such a diverse movement. Personally, since I’m such a concequentialist, I’d ask for a cost-benefit analysis, and endorse such a move only if it reduced overall tax burdens. What do other folks think?
Principles of the Commentariat
by Aaron on July 23, 2010
in Politics,Psychology,Reader Questions
What’s the motivating principle behind liberalism? Or conservatism? Libertarians can boil it down to ‘liberty’, and explain adherence to that principle in academic, empirical, philosophical, and practical terms.
But as much as I talk about the problems with libs and cons, in some ways I’m really talking about my problems with my view of their philosophies. I’d like to hear self-stylized liberals and conservatives explain in their own words what it’s all about. If it’s easier for you, what was your epiphany moment that drove you one way or the other?
Also, to avoid a giant clusterfuck any comment over 150 words gets deleted. No exceptions. Hayek himself could rise from the dead and write a 151 comment that made tears come to my eyes and song lift up my heart, and I’d still spam it.
Spread the love:
{ 3 comments }