Interesting article I found, thoughts?
Tax cuts do not create jobs. Consumer demand does. Only a stupid business owner would hire more people simply because he has more money in his pocket when demand for his goods and services are not there. We need to restore consumer confidence...which partially requires Washington to compromise and make a deal.
One thing I would like to do on this blog is something that I've gotten into the habit of doing on Facebook. I would post an article which I find interesting and open it to discussion. I believe that productive arguments can stem from this. I invite other people to do the same. So far only Fitz is the only one to comment on this, and I appreciate his insight. Lets see if we can get more people to do this
In the decade leading up to the first shots fired over Lexington and Concord, marking the start of the revolutionary feud, the slogan "no taxation without representation" spread feverishly. It summarized the popular idea that the colonists were unlawfully bearing the burden of taxes, levied from England without representation in Parliament. While not the only reason for independence, unjust taxes were a primary concern. The colonists published pamphlets, stockpiled munnitions, and challenged the largest military force on the planet; and not because their safety or security was at risk, but because of a denial of their "rights as Englishmen".
The idea that, in a republic, one should have (at the very least) a say in what taxes are taken from one's productive capacities is hard to refute. If I labor over an orchard and produce fifty barrels of apples, and a taxperson seizes the income realized from ten barrels without my democratic consent, then there is nothing but robbery taking place. If I go vote 'no' on the measure to tax my income (or on a representative to do the same), I am implicitly voting 'yes', should the measure pass, because I am, in the first place, taking part in a democratic process of taxation.
So why, when it comes to the taxation of future generations, does an idea so simple lose its logic? I'm speaking of government debt, to borrow funds, with interest, on the credit of a nation. Every person knows that borrowed consumption today equals deferred consumption tomorrow. Every dollar must be returned. It's true that given a certain financial circumstance, borrowing what you don't have now is useful to reach a repayment capacity which might not have existed otherwise. I borrow money to buy a car to get to work to pay off the car. So the simple observation goes.
But what about a nation? Does a nation have credit to draw from? Can elected representatives, on the behalf of their constituency, secure loans which require interest payments? The answer lies in what credit is.
A common misconception is that credit is given by the lender to the borrower. Really, credit is what the borrower already has which allows her to secure a loan. It is her trustworthy and industrious character that makes the loan to her a reality. Yes, a nation can be trustworthy and industrious in general, and can generate public revenues to finance government debts. But what happens when the assumption is carried too far? Can we borrow on the credit of those who do not yet exist? Can we know their credit score before they're born? This is a fundamental folly with state debt.
State debt is a win-win situation for myopic politicians, concerned only with approval ratings leading up to election cycles. State debt therefore creates a conflict of interest: it pits the best apologists and liars against each other, competing to promise the most in a world of finite resource. Raising taxes is never a popular campaign platform, but new programs and welfare spending are, so deficit finance becomes the bipartisan touchdown pass. It's a Hail Mary, though, as each dollar borrowed on the credit of a nation is a dollar (plus interest) taxed from the productive capacity of a willing nation later on, assuming this capacity and willingness will exist.
This willingness is what brings us back to "taxation without representation". The colonists were unwilling to pay taxes without democratic participation. They shed blood, it was such an impassioned ideal. Future generations face a parallel; they will wake up, realize their efforts and economies are being taxed to back-finance the livelihood and standard of living from a previous generation, and especially if they do not enjoy the same standard of living, they may well revolt. They may ask, "Why should I give the fruits of my labor to a democratic process of taxation in which I took no part?"
Democracy can be tyrannical, but whose head to sever? The colonists severed an oligarchy; a future generation of Americans must sever the previous one. Perhaps the future is now.
I am simply amazed that many on the left and a few on the right are so damned arrogant to think that they truly believe that their way is the only correct way and try to systematicly implement failed ideas. Has it really come to this? Is it our duty in America to cower before these supposed giants and let these failed ideas rule our lives? The reason I bring this up is because I am constantly aware that civil discourse no longer exists especially at the University of Arizona. Colleges are supposed to promote the free exchange of ideas, but instead what you have is the promotion of what is considered to be the "right" way of thinking, and anything contrary to that is demonized and rejected. If you don't agree with liberal academia then you are held in contempt by the majority of the student body who truly don't know any better. Tyrany indeed.
