Hobbit@Law

Looking carefully at that which is unseen.

OTB: Why not, for once, help the little guy?

The State mucking around with the economy is generally a Very Bad Idea. But why not try this Outside The Box idea:

Instead of paying ever more (borrowed) money to the Big Banks, why not declare a one year moratorium on income taxes? That’s right, no taxes collected – or due – for individual filers for the tax year. Corporations would still need to file and pay. The amount of money “lost” would be about the same as was borrowed for TARP, so the results would be similar on the balance sheets – but think about the economic effects of putting hundreds of dollars back in people’s pockets every month.

It’s OTB – but tell me why it’s wrong.

Advertisements

5 responses to “OTB: Why not, for once, help the little guy?

  1. MamaLiberty August 22, 2011 at 8:14 pm

    Corporations don’t pay taxes, their customers do.

    Taxes are theft. Theft is wrong. It is impossible to justify theft from anyone, for any reason.

    But go ahead and try to sell that to your congressgators. Good luck! πŸ™‚

    • Hobbit@Law August 22, 2011 at 8:46 pm

      True, taxes are theft. That being said, though – and this is why it’s an OTB post – what’s unlibertarian about stopping the stealing for a year?

      I’d also add the new OTB position that since corporations are, by their very legal nature, creatures of the State then any money the State wishes to take from them is part of what they bargained (with the devil) for, and to the extent that they pass their costs on to the consumer they just end up pricing themselves out of business. Now if the company is a partnership or a sole proprietor, that’s a different kettle of brimstone entirely….. πŸ˜‰

  2. MamaLiberty August 23, 2011 at 12:42 pm

    “…what’s unlibertarian about stopping the stealing for a year?”

    Since I’m not a “libertarian,” I can’t answer that question. I do know that it is no more legitimate to steal from a thief than it is to steal from anyone else. If theft is wrong, the identity of the victim is immaterial – just as it would be for murder or rape.

    The other serious problem with this idea is that it would have to be implemented by the thieves themselves – and would involve stealing FROM themselves for the most part. Somehow I don’t think they’d go for it.

    But if you can figure out some way to accomplish it, I’m sure not going to stand in your way! πŸ™‚

    • Hobbit@Law August 23, 2011 at 2:38 pm

      Oh, I have zero doubt that it would ever be implemented, any more than the State would declare a jubilee and render all debts null and void, another interesting OTB solution. There’s too much at stake for the banksters.

      That being said, I’m still not clear on how not taking money from somebody is stealing. πŸ˜›

  3. MamaLiberty August 23, 2011 at 2:53 pm

    “…how not taking money from somebody is stealing.”

    Never said it was. But deciding “not” to rob certain people, while continuing to rob others doesn’t seem to be productive either.

    Part of the problem I see with much that is proposed is that it is not predicated on the absolute moral requirement, but merely some pragmatic fragment. This might well be useful in the short term, but does nothing at all to further understanding and adoption of the moral and ethical foundation that will be required for individuals to become true self owners.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: