THERE ARE NO WINNERS, MR. NOFS
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE NOFS: “In any business tax there will be some winners and some losers, but with this plan there are more winners.”PALEOCRAT: "No, Mr. Nofs, there are no winners with any tax. There are merely those who lose less."
CLAIM: It’s provisions are aimed at helping small business grow.
PALEOCRAT: How is taking any money from small businesses, regardless of the amount, going to help them grow? This is economic nonsense.
Labels: Bannister and Sutherby, Battle Creek, business, economics, Jeremiah Bannister, Michigan, Mike Nofs, paleocrat, taxes, TV
posted by Paleocrat at Tuesday, July 03, 2007
8 Comments:
This comment does not make any sense either. Why are you referring to Mike Nofs as a Congressman and why do you tag your post with "Congress"?
7:53 PM
How does this comment not make sense? No business who pays the tax "wins." You may "lose" less, but you certainly would not chalk that up as a "win."
It would be like both Bob and I getting mugged, but Bob gets beat down a little worse. If someone came by and called me a "winner," I would think they are crazy! Sure, my face didn't get as mangled as Bob's, but this shiner is far from causing me to run a victory lap.
1:00 AM
It does not make sense unless one works under the assumption that all taxes are bad. Taxes are the cost of government. If you approach every tax issue with the assumption that all taxes are bad, then your goal is anarchy.
Your final sentence, "How is taking any money from small businesses, regardless of the amount, going to help them grow?" begs for an answer. Small businesses pay taxes to ensure they have an opportunity to conduct business in a stable environment. At a minimum, they gladly pay for police and fire protection. They pay tax revenue for social security, medicare, medicaid and unemployment insurance to sustain labor which is necessary for any business.
Putting tax rates in terms of winners and losers is subjective and I believe you are applying the wrong context to Representative Nofs words. I don't think he deserves it and it warps his message. He was simply saying rates of taxation have changed, higher for some but lower for a majority of payers including most small businesses.
6:06 PM
I do insist that, to some degree, all taxes are bad. They are a necessary evil. What keeps us from anarchy is their necessity, but the extent of this necessity would be a topic better suited for another occasion.
Small businesses pay taxes to ensure they compete in a stable environment? You mention police and fire protection. I willingly grant the former and will tentatively grant the latter. But I do not believe that these services should be contingent upon a business tax. Then again, I am radically opposed to all forms of business tax.
You mention social security, medicare, medicaid and unemployment insurance as being necessary for any business. I strongly oppose all of them. Then again, this is just in staying true to my paleolibertarian inclinations.
Lastly, I think your take on Nofs's remarks is no different than mine. Taxes changed. The taxes will hurt some people more than others. Regardless, everyone loses something... even if it is only ownership of their money.
11:31 PM
I did not say any specific tax is necessary. I simply pointed out a few government services which benefit business.
Police and fire protection are services which private citizens enjoy and also which are very necessary for conducting safe, efficient business transactions in crowded places.
The payroll taxes I mention are taxes which benefit both labor and business owners. Both consent to the tax as a condition of employment. No one on the face of this planet has a right to a job. It is a privilege. With any privilege comes responsibility. In this case, taxes are a trade-off for a (hopefully) decent workplace.
We can adjust or abolish all payroll taxes but we don't, probably because they seem to be working for the most part.
And, if you are enjoying the benefits of government, you are required to pay taxes. If you don't like it, move, change the tax code, or don't pay them. But to say they are a necessary evil is innacurate. Excessive taxes are evil. A fair tax code is not.
What would happen if you were able to write the tax code. You and you alone were given the pen and whatever you wrote was law. Would you allow evil?
11:38 PM
Business owners and employees consent to the payroll tax as a condition of employment? Consent. That is a neat way of puttin it. Sure, we consent to what is required of us, but looking down the barrel of a gun (i.e., jail time, fines, etc.) normally limits how we choose to respond in our "consent" to demands.
Payroll taxes seem to be working? If your goal is to fuel a welfare state, then yes. Personally, I would rather see the State look more like Lassie than Leviathan.
Would I allow evil? Of course. As I said before, it is a necessary evil. If men were perfect and there was no need for law & order (i.e., police, military, court system, etc.) then I would be opposed to any and all taxation. Unfortunately, we do not live in this Utopia. In the real world, one that is riddled with bad people doing unjust things to good people, we need services that only the State can provide. In so far as this is a necessity, we need taxes.
I am opposed to any and all taxes that go beyond the necessity of defending the innocent from the wicked.
10:09 AM
Taxes are a solution to a problem. If you admit we have a problem, and the government is here to protect and serve, then some level of taxation is good and just.
I'm not arguing that every tax is good and I willingly accept the evil label for some taxes, but working on the assumption that all taxes are evil is intellectually dishonest. That line of thinking is disruptive and when you stake out an extreme position, based in notions of good vs. evil, you leave no room for debate.
How will anyone take you seriously, or be willing to engage you in debate if you take the moral high-ground on the mere existence of any taxes?
2:17 PM
I agree that on “some level” taxes are good. They are only good in so far as they enable the government to function as a defender of life, liberty, and property. This, though, is negative coercion. Like shooting a man who is about to kill you, it is both good and not good at the same time, just not in the same fashion. Hence, a necessary evil may at "some level" be good.
I am not working from the assumption that taxes are, in and of themselves, evil. As I said, due to the fact that we live in a world where good people need protection from bad people who do bad things, we need government. Were this not to be the case, government would be completely irrelevant. Once again, we do not live in this Utopia. This being as it is, taxes are essential. This doesn’t really help us much, though, because we are still left with the questions pertaining to who will be taxed, how much will be taxes, on what authority do we make our decision, et cetera.
Lastly, I am more than willing to engage people in discussions pertaining to taxation. I am engaged in these discussions all the time. The difference between us is not one of “tax vs. no tax” but of the “who, what, where, when, why, how much, and on what authority” of the matter.
2:31 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home