Tuesday, October 8, 2013

On "Costly" Tax Cuts

In a NJ Star-Ledger letter, Unrealistic tax plan, Gilbert Bohen criticized a column by Americans for Prosperity’s Daryn Iwicki, “Cutting taxes can lead N.J. to prosperity”Bohen wrote:

[Tax cuts] didn't work for Reagan, nor either Bush; it failed miserably.

Rather than enacting costly tax cuts, many of us would rather Christie reinstate and refund the programs he cut that directly help women, children and the needy/working poor.

I left these comments:

"Costly"—to whom? 

Not to the 40 million new job holders resulting from the 15 year economic boom generated by "Reaganomics," which lowered all tax rates, including the top rates from 70% to 28%.

Not to the average families who got to keep tens of thousands of additional dollars of their earnings under the Bush tax cuts. 

Not to the productive individuals who would get to hang on to more of their hard-earned money under the Americans for Prosperity tax cut plan.

Tax cuts are costly to the power-hungry, unearned glory-seeking, need-worshipping politicians whose aim is to "help" women, children, and the working poor at the expense of the productive in a never-ending quest to expand the ranks of the parasitical.

History and logic have shown the moral and economic degenerativeness of the sacrifice of productiveness to need—from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Kudos to the tax cutters who courageously stand up for the productive against the looting worshippers of need and the unearned.

Related Reading:

The Real Tax "Loophole": The Sixteenth Amendment

In the Spirit of "Compromise," How About a Flat Tax


Mike Kevitt said...

But of course, as we know, it takes a comprehensive approach to reestablish rights, not just tax cutting, then this, then that, etc. until we've gotten around to everything. The piece meal approach will only get everybody running into each other as bad, or worse, than now.

Comprehensive, here, means getting around to many things at once, and covering all things in the same process, and all in a coordinated way. Otherwise, there'll be conflict among us who start seeking to exercise rights. This gives fuel to those who oppose laissez-faire.

Their position as outlaws must be shown by eliminating unlawful legislation and resurrecting and establishing and enforcing all needed lawful legislation, and maintaining and updating it, ongoing.

That's individual rights, law, government, capitalism and freedom.

Michael A. LaFerrara said...


Every opportunity to make an unequivocal concrete step toward more freedom, however small or large, is an opportunity to make the "comprehensive"—i.e., philosophic—case for individual rights, et al.

If the advocates of such steps don't make the philosophic case—as they rarely do—we should do it for them. If the advocates of tax cuts rely solely on the utilitarian argument, I'll be happy to jump in and move the conversation to the "comprehensive"—i.e., philosophic— level.

Making the principled case for tax cuts (or any single issue) is "covering all things in the same process," because principles have broad application.

Mike Kevitt said...

All true, and wise. I wasn't referring to size, but to composition. Even if things happened the way I suggested, above, it would have to be backed, publicly, by the philosophic case.

And, as you say, we should seize upon any unequivocal concrete step we can, and give it the philosophic case. As a concrete step comes, we ought to be ready with one or more additional steps which would be workable with it, all of them as a whole, as a unit, and reiterate the philosophy. Not just ANY additional step, but steps that fit well, immediately, logically, with whatever comes first, or next, steps that are directly related.

Because, in a system dominated by statism, steps only remotely related are isolated and can do little by themselves. All anybody sees are their conflicts with statism, but not how they work productively with other steps toward freedom.

Making the case philosophically is comprehensive, it covers all things, intellectually, but we should be as comprehensive as we can be in fact. Otherwise, we're just talking about it too much.