Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Effluent Taxes
Posted by: Jon Henke on Friday, June 02, 2006

My co-bloggers have raised objections to the notion that a policy of internalizing costs through taxes ought to play a role in reducing anthropogenic global warming. (through, e.g., carbon taxes on what are generally problematic and damaging emissions, even aside from global warming effects) Leaving aside the question of the degree of human contribution to global warming, I have to wonder why cost-internalizing taxes on carbon emissions and harmful effluents would be a step backwards?
Surely some form of effluent tax would be more efficient and valuable than the payroll tax.
Since we're spending nearly 3 trillion a year, there's no choice but to collect something close to that in revenue. So we employ revenue collection methods like, e.g., the payroll tax. Government revenues from the payroll tax are estimated at around $800 billion for 2006. The payroll tax is partly taken from a workers salary and partly imposed upon businesses as an additional cost of hiring.

Other than merely raising revenue, what beneficial effect does that have? What cost does that taxation internalize? None. It disincentivizes employment in order to raise tax revenue. A carbon tax, on the other hand, would have a variety of beneficial effects regardless of your opinion on global warming. Nor am I the exception among libertarians on that position.

Libertarian columnist John Tierney has suggested a "carbon tax on gasoline and other fossil fuels"; Milton Friedman has frequently argued for effluents taxes. In an interview with Robert Kuttner, Friedman said...
Obviously there are externalities. There is a role for government and the question is what are the means that you use. And the answers of a free market environmentalist is you use market mechanisms. Instead of setting quantitative limits on pollution, you impose a tax.
In a 1999 edition of the Hoover Digest, Friedman said...
Milton Friedman has frequently argued for effluents taxes.
FRIEDMAN [Externalities are] a problem. The next question is whether there is a way of resolving that problem that doesn’t cost more than it is worth. In many cases there is no way of resolving the problem that doesn’t introduce equal problems, and in almost all other cases such problems are better solved by imposing pollution fees.
Surely some form of effluent tax would be more efficient and valuable than the payroll tax. There are, even aside from global warming, positive benefits to disincentivizing our dependence on energy sources which emit carbon and other pollutants, destabilize the geopolitical stage and are subject to extreme price volatility; but what are the positive benefits of disincentivizing employment?
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Well, if you imposed the tax too suddenly, you’d create quite an adverse demand shock that would have rather uneven negative effects on many sectors of the economy, not to mention households who have budgeted for gasoline consumption.

But overall, if you gotta disincentivize something, might as well be something with well-known negative effects and better (if less economical) alternatives, right? Employment isn’t it.
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
Exactly correct.

Kyoto should have had a target, not of pollution, but of revenue % generated by gas taxes. Say 10% of Fed revenue, but increasing. (What is it now?) Then gas taxes, rising at $0.01 per month until the target is reached, except in crisis high price times (when the gas price goes up so much the Congress is willing to take a pay cut?!!!), keep going up displacing other taxes.

Of course, anger at increasing gas taxes can be turned, somewhat, against too much spending in general — as the way to reduce taxes.

Also, a % of revenue is available to India, China, and all other developing countries. Iraq has gas prices of what, $0.40/gal or something ridiculously low — so the US taxpayer is paying for reconstruction but there’s gas shortages (blamed on America) because too much smuggling.

All greens should also, always be challenged — how much gas taxes do they recommend.
 
Written By: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad
URL: http://tomgrey.motime.com
I would have to agree Jon. If the choice is between this and payroll taxes, I choose this. As long as we could get the govt to not try both...
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
What if it works?

Say you slowly drop the payroll tax and switch to one designed to reduce carbon emissions and that goes smoothly. If the goal is to internalize the "costs" of those emissions can you explain how a 50% reduction in emissions (Say the entire coal based power industry goes nuclear) and the resultant 50% reduction in tax revenue is remotely matched by a 50% reduction in government costs?

I’m having trouble making the connection between what a factory outputs and a cost borne by the government that the payroll tax covers.

I can see a correlation between the costs of my consuming gasoline and outputting carbon and our defense costs. I seems that we’d still have many of those costs if we lived in a world where the fuel I used was made entirely in the US. We still need a Navy to keep the sea lanes open. We’d still need national defense, perhaps a different one, but one none the less.

I don’t see how this plan internalizes costs as much as it provides a disencentive to something you don’t like. Fine, but what’s the plan to make up the revenue if the plan works? Raise the payroll tax?

Oh, and imaginve we stopped buring oil, we’d still need it for the non-burning uses (Not to mention the uses our suppliers like China have) so we’d not be insulated from the world supply price. And I haven’t seen a remotely vialbe replacement for Kerosene as jet fuel.
 
Written By: Ryan
URL: http://
My co-bloggers have raised objections to the notion that a policy of internalizing costs through taxes ought to play a role in reducing anthropogenic global warming (or costly problem emissions, in general).
"or costly problem emissions, in general"? I have never raised such an objection. My objection was to government action to internalize the costs of Global Warming.

I was quite specific on this point.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Very well. I worded that very poorly. It should have been two separate thoughts. I’ve re-worded that digression to make it more clear and accurate.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.qando.net/
I disagree that it is a legitimate role of government to impose disincentives on the use of any particular energy source except insofar as such financial disincentives (i.e., taxes) directly go to capturing the costs of what would otherwise be uncaptured negative externalities. But perhaps that is all you meant.

Beyond that, targeted taxes, however worthy any particular one may be, raise the problem of the government generating revenue by targeting unpopular sources unfairly. (E.g., alcohol, tobacco, etc.) Again, if the monies collected can be spent only to redress the real public damage done, such tax amounts to a usage fee and I have no problem with that. I fear, however, that ours is not a government that will permit itself to be obligated or constrained by such punctiliousness.
 
Written By: D.A. Ridgely
URL: http://
Replacing the payroll tax with a carbon tax is one of the best ideas I’ve seen here. It reduces dependencies on forign oil, it encourages local production of energy, it raises effective wages. There is no downside so long as it is phased in.

If it works so well that revenues drop below what ever minimum needed to keep the government open we can then address tax policy with a badly needed clean slate.

Who do you think is more likely to suggest it Dems or Reps?
 
Written By: cindyb
URL: http://
I don’t see how this plan internalizes costs as much as it provides a disencentive to something you don’t like. Fine, but what’s the plan to make up the revenue if the plan works? Raise the payroll tax?
Well, over time, the plan will work. Gasoline demand is fairly inelastic, but not totally inelastic over time. In the meantime, you can offset the revenue by cutting back your liabilities or other taxes.

If you lower income/payroll taxes, you incentivize employment and create jobs, which ultimately creates more revenue and lowers welfare costs.
If you pay off liabilities like debt, you have a number of positive effects, including smaller future liabilities (interest payments each year).

When gasoline consumption drops enough that you’re actually losing revenue (currently the trend is toward greater demand), yes, you have to make it up somewhere — spending cuts, raising a tax somewhere (maybe raising the gasoline tax even higher?), etc. But it will be ameliorated by the fact that you’ve paid off those liabilities or increased employment in the meantime.
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
That said, though, a gasoline/effluent tax will create an adverse demand shock, and it will raise the costs of doing business for many sectors — and unevenly so. How will airlines respond? Carmakers? Cargo and delivery companies?

I also want to address a point made by cindyb that I don’t think is quite accurate:
Replacing the payroll tax with a carbon tax is one of the best ideas I’ve seen here. It reduces dependencies on forign oil, it encourages local production of energy, it raises effective wages
I don’t see how any of those are actually true.
Since an effluent tax would be on all gas, I don’t see how it would encourage local production of energy. Whoever produces at the lowest cost still has an advantage in the market... unless you’re talking a sliding tax that creates a price floor above current equilibrium costs for foreign producers.
As for reducing dependency on foreign oil, well yes, it does that over time, but only after we start switching to alternative sources of petrol-based materials. We still need oil for lots of things. In fact, is it actually a good thing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil? That works two ways, y’know... foreign countries also rely on us for cash. And as long as we depend on each other, we’re each less likely to do something stupid like attacking each other.

Finally, I don’t see how it raises effective wages, at least not consistently. Yes, you lower payroll/income taxes and everyone gets a higher nominal income, but you’ve transferred the costs over to a very commonly used product. People who rely on that product to do their daily business (e.g., drive to work in the morning) are going to have to pay more, meaning that their dollar doesn’t go as far. Hence, effective wages could go down, or stay the same, or rise, dpeending on how much of your income goes toward effluents like gasoline.
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
After this, the next step is obviously instituting an individual effluent tax...or maybe a carbon usage tax. Just think of the tax-collection preceedent! You’ll be handing the govt yet another tool to be even more intrusive into your personal business!
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
My objections to a carbon tax, like a tax on electricity use, a tax on food - is that it is regressive.

It would cost a poor person or middle class person far more in tax on each dollar earned than a wealthy person - particularly one writing off vehicles, transportation costs as a business expense.

Just another scheme like the Flat tax intended to further enrch the rich by shifting the tax burden onto "lesser Americans" than they...
 
Written By: C. Ford
URL: http://
It is useful to note that the European "Carbon" tax (or credit) did not apply to nuclear power. The Greens and their Social Democratic partners in many countries did not want to give nuclear such a substantial marketplace advantage.

Similarly, in US Electricity Markets renewables no longer include hydro power (not because the rain doesn’t continue to renew it, but because it offended green sensibilities).

Externalities must be honest to have their desired impact. Othewise they are just new taxes
 
Written By: Dave Moelling
URL: http://
There are, even aside from global warming, positive benefits to disincentivizing our dependence on energy sources which emit carbon and other pollutants, destabilize the geopolitical stage and are subject to extreme price volatility

Well, perhaps (one can argue whether or not reducing carbon emissions is actually a benefit or a red herring, but that’s irrelevant for my point here... as is the quibble about whether oil’s "destabilization" is outweighed by its utility as a source of income to various poor countries, at least in principle, and whether or not stability is something to necessarily strive for).

But any assessment of benefits from such a scheme can’t exist without an assessment of the costs, which would be immense, at all levels.

(Anything that raises the price of energy (which is what a "carbon tax" aimed at reducing oil/coal/gas use is) raises the price of everything, no?

And that’s without exploring the cost of new energy infrastructure, whatever it happens to be for whatever energy source people have in mind.)

The obvious problem I see with "pollution fees" is... who gets to define pollution and set the fees? The state is the obvious agency for that, of course, but the very fact that "carbon" is selected as a pollutant makes me very, very distrustful of the idea itself. And the fees seem far more likely to be set for political ends than to actually account for real impact of "pollution". Honestly, I’d rather have no fees and increased growth (the obvious effect of lower taxation) than fees as a government slush fund and the obvious distorting effects on the economy. I wager the former will lead to less real pollution in the long run, especially as we’re not giving up having the EPA and laws in general to control actual, demonstrably harmful pollution externalities.
 
Written By: Sigivald
URL: http://
Correction: gasoline is not an effluent, but using it creates effluents.
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
Something must be done!
Charge a tax.....How very governmental.
Weren’t we just sweating the unintended costs of immigration hysteria the other day?
Talk about hysteria - hah.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
"It would cost a poor person or middle class person far more in tax on each dollar earned than a wealthy person - particularly one writing off vehicles, transportation costs as a business expense."

That only holds true if you assume the same gas milage per person. SUV’s and luxury cars get worse gas milage. Of course, hybrids are also for the upper class, and they get better milage.

The bigger regressivity issue would be the cost of basic goods going up because of higher shipping costs.
 
Written By: Tito
URL: http://
the quibble about whether oil’s "destabilization" is outweighed by its utility as a source of income to various poor countries, at least in principle
The problem with countries where one resource is responsible for such a great deal of the income is, that poor country is particularly vulnerable to elites taking over that one resource and preventing the wealth from trickling down to the people of that country. The resource is concentrated in few hands, and those hands have a nasty habit of putting the income into offshore accounts and/or skipping the country entirely.

Where the resources are more evenly distributed among the population, the elites (including those in government) have to go to the people when they want money. Hence they are more accountable to those people. Those people are also empowered by their wealth, being better educated and more capable (perhaps being able to afford arms is the first step).
In a petrostate — take your pick of countries that match my model — such accountability is highly limited, and the elites are rarely reminded of who serves who. Thus we end up with stable (on account of having strong control over the central resource) but failing (on account of lacking pervasive mutual accountability) states.
(Anything that raises the price of energy (which is what a "carbon tax" aimed at reducing oil/coal/gas use is) raises the price of everything, no?
Yes, to varying degrees. Not every industry or household derives the same amount of its energy from effluent-producing fuels, but they all do to some extent.
But any assessment of benefits from such a scheme can’t exist without an assessment of the costs, which would be immense, at all levels.
The costs to the employed and to employers are also immense. Besides the obvious costs of collecting a few hundred billion from here rather than there, I assume you mean second-order costs.

And you’re right. Income/payroll taxes discourage employment and productive work. Effluent taxes discourage any production or recreation relying on polluting methods of producing energy.
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
Tito -
The bigger regressivity issue would be the cost of basic goods going up because of higher shipping costs.
Not just shipping costs, actually. Effluent-producing materials are used in a wide variety of applications pertaining to the production and sale of goods and services.
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
Your premise is absolutely false,...and disheartening to a libertarian mindset....


Since we’re spending nearly 3 trillion a year, there’s no choice but to collect something close to that in revenue....

Your "Cause and Effect" argument therefore falls flat.


Why not SPEND LESS AND LESS, and thereby require/legislate that so much be taken from us in taxes. I will not accept that we have no choice, unless we choose to agree to this insanity.

What happened to the fight?!

 
Written By: Mark Cancemi
URL: http://
What if it works?
Good question. My preferred solution would be to replace lost (necessary) revenue — not add — by shifting taxes to another high-negative externality area. The premise being that, if you have to have taxes, better that they reduce negative externalities than create them.
I’m having trouble making the connection between what a factory outputs and a cost borne by the government that the payroll tax covers.
Unfortunately, in an even payrol-for-effluents switch, we would be unable to capture the costs completely. We would only ensure that the costs were reflected in the price so that the substitution incentive (and the incentive to produce new alternatives) was there.
I disagree that it is a legitimate role of government to impose disincentives on the use of any particular energy source except insofar as such financial disincentives (i.e., taxes) directly go to capturing the costs of what would otherwise be uncaptured negative externalities. But perhaps that is all you meant.
I would certainly prefer a user fee system of taxation. That would be wholly preferable to what we have today, or to an effluents tax. But it’s not possible. And since we have legitimate environmental and security interests involved, an effluents tax would be far better than taxes on employment, for which there are no negative externalities.

The danger of drift is a legitimate one, but that’s a complaint about taxation in general. I’m not sure that an effluent tax would pose any greater risk than a payroll tax or other existing taxes.
Who do you think is more likely to suggest it Dems or Reps?
(sigh) I wouldn’t trust the Democrats to propose it, and I wouldn’t expect the Republicans to propose it.
That said, though, a gasoline/effluent tax will create an adverse demand shock, and it will raise the costs of doing business for many sectors — and unevenly so. How will airlines respond? Carmakers? Cargo and delivery companies?
By seeking — and pouring R&D money into — substitutes! (that’s a positive result)
Since an effluent tax would be on all gas, I don’t see how it would encourage local production of energy.
See above: by incentivizing substitute energy sources, there would — in some length of time — be less dependence on the kind of oil energy produced in the middle east. I don’t think it would produce higher effective wages, though. Perhaps some non-drivers might experience that, but not in general.
Just another scheme like the Flat tax intended to further enrch the rich by shifting the tax burden onto "lesser Americans" than they...
Two points:

1) As I propose it, it would replace the payroll tax, which is already regressive. And poor people have more substitutes for oil consumption than they have for employment.

2) If you think a flat tax must be regressive, you don’t appear to understand the Flat Tax (as it has been proposed)
But any assessment of benefits from such a scheme can’t exist without an assessment of the costs, which would be immense, at all levels. Anything that raises the price of energy (which is what a "carbon tax" aimed at reducing oil/coal/gas use is) raises the price of everything, no?
Why should an effluent tax raise prices more than a payroll tax? If it’s revenue neutral at $800b, the general price level should remain the same. Along those lines...
The bigger regressivity issue would be the cost of basic goods going up because of higher shipping costs.
What happens when you eliminate payroll taxes? They apply to more industries than do shipping costs.

If the tax collection is revenue neutral, then the affect on the general price level should be neutral. Some industries would be more directly affected by a gas tax, but all industries would see payroll taxes alleviated. CPI should remain neutral.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Why not SPEND LESS AND LESS,
And while we’re at it, why not a pony?

There is no significant political demand for significantly less spending. The public likes big government. The only question is how they will get it. If you have a workable plan to get to a sharply limited government, good luck. I prefer to deal with reality as I find it.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Well, over time, the plan will work. Gasoline demand is fairly inelastic, but not totally inelastic over time. In the meantime, you can offset the revenue by cutting back your liabilities or other taxes.
I agree it will achieve the goal of reducing consumption over time. Why would you recude the revenue "in the mean time", it’s the end game for the plan where the problem is...

If you lower income/payroll taxes, you incentivize employment and create jobs, which ultimately creates more revenue and lowers welfare costs.
Unless you’re saying that increasing employment will increase energy use and that increase will cover tax revenue I don’t see the connection. The problem is that the goal of "internalizing" the cost of something by taxing it and then using the money to cover non-costs leaves you holding the bag if you actually reduce usage.

Now if your contention is that increased employment will increase energy usage enough to cover the lost revenue as the consumption per person drops I’ve got to ask what the point is agian? To be revenue neutral when per person usage drops you’d have to maintain a constant total usage. If the goal is to reduce total consumption, this seems like a failure.

If you pay off liabilities like debt, you have a number of positive effects, including smaller future liabilities (interest payments each year).
Pay off liabilities with what? I thought the proposal was to replace the 800B in payroll tax with 800B in "cost internalization" taxes. There’s no extra to pay off anything different than we do today. Unless energy usage increases, which wasn’t the goal of the internalization.

When gasoline consumption drops enough that you’re actually losing revenue (currently the trend is toward greater demand), yes, you have to make it up somewhere — spending cuts, raising a tax somewhere (maybe raising the gasoline tax even higher?), etc. But it will be ameliorated by the fact that you’ve paid off those liabilities or increased employment in the meantime.
How? If the payroll tax is gone the extra employment won’t mean jack from an income perspective. You seem to have missed the point that the extra employment, while good, won’t change the amount of tax collected unless the energy usage goes up. Which isn’t the goal of this proposal.

 
Written By: Ryan
URL: http://
Just another scheme like the Flat tax intended to further enrch the rich by shifting the tax burden onto "lesser Americans" than they...
Good, the poor have been getting a free ride for too long.
As for reducing dependency on foreign oil, well yes, it does that over time, but only after we start switching to alternative sources of petrol-based materials.
agreed, I would like to see a tax directly on imported petroleum as well.
(again, only as a substitute for an existing tax)
Why not SPEND LESS AND LESS, and thereby require/legislate that so much be taken from us in taxes. I will not accept that we have no choice, unless we choose to agree to this insanity.

What happened to the fight?!
Lost that one a long time ago, Welcome to the twentyfirst century.
 
Written By: kyle N
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
That said, though, a gasoline/effluent tax will create an adverse demand shock, and it will raise the costs of doing business for many sectors — and unevenly so. How will airlines respond? Carmakers? Cargo and delivery companies?
By seeking — and pouring R&D money into — substitutes! (that’s a positive result)
Yes, but it’s one with a delayed payoff. The people in those industries have other concerns. I’m not saying it’s a bad idea; I’m just saying we should lay out all the costs and benefits as they really are.
Since an effluent tax would be on all gas, I don’t see how it would encourage local production of energy.
See above: by incentivizing substitute energy sources, there would — in some length of time — be less dependence on the kind of oil energy produced in the middle east. I don’t think it would produce higher effective wages, though. Perhaps some non-drivers might experience that, but not in general.
Okay, I get what you’re saying, but again that’s after a delay.
-=-=-=-=-
Ryan-
Well, over time, the plan will work. Gasoline demand is fairly inelastic, but not totally inelastic over time. In the meantime, you can offset the revenue by cutting back your liabilities or other taxes.
I agree it will achieve the goal of reducing consumption over time. Why would you recude the revenue "in the mean time"
Well, I figured Jon was proposing a basically revenue-neutral plan, meaning that a rise in revenue in one place (an effluent tax) would be offset by a cut in revenue elsewhere (employment).
If you pay off liabilities like debt, you have a number of positive effects, including smaller future liabilities (interest payments each year).
Pay off liabilities with what? I thought the proposal was to replace the 800B in payroll tax with 800B in "cost internalization" taxes. There’s no extra to pay off anything different than we do today.
My proposal for one possible alternative was that you could take that $800B and, rather than cutting income taxes directly, perhaps pay off $800B in debt that is really future taxes — with interest.

Jon’s proposal was to make it revenue-neutral in the immediate time frame; my proposal included the possibility of an even better result in the long term.
When gasoline consumption drops enough that you’re actually losing revenue (currently the trend is toward greater demand), yes, you have to make it up somewhere — spending cuts, raising a tax somewhere (maybe raising the gasoline tax even higher?), etc. But it will be ameliorated by the fact that you’ve paid off those liabilities or increased employment in the meantime.
How?
Paying off loans with interest, assuming one went with my proposal, would decrease the interest payments we need to make on that debt.
Going with Jon’s proposal, if you pick up the taxes somewhere else once effluent tax revenue starts to slip, at least your economy has grown more in the meantime — I’m assuming here, of course, that the transfer of taxation over to something with more negative effects on society than employment would create net better outcomes in the future. The gains "in the meantime" would ameliorate the pain of having to raise taxes elsewhere once revenues started to slip.
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
Good question. My preferred solution would be to replace lost (necessary) revenue — not add — by shifting taxes to another high-negative externality area. The premise being that, if you have to have taxes, better that they reduce negative externalities than create them.
This seems like a slope where at some point we run out of "real" bad things for the government to tax you on, and picking the next bad thing becomes a political football. Because this isn’t cost recovery I don’t see how you can avoid a system aimed at social engineering.

With a payroll tax, at least the goal of limiting its impact can be used to keep it under control.
 
Written By: Ryan
URL: http://
Okay Jon,

Milton Friedman is my Patron Saint, so by invoking him you automatically get my attention.

I believe that all of your arguments in this post are good, and I agree completely insofar as there is no doubt that taxing efluents is the best way to put harmful pollution on the right side of the Coase theorem. But in my opinion, efluent taxes should be reserved for well-understood pollutants, like sulphur dioxide and mercury emissions. If there is no clear benefit to taxing an emission—a worthwhile projected effect from pollutant reduction produced by the taxes—then the only thing we’ve succeeded in doing is making ourselves worse off economically.

There ain’t no percentage in that.

yours/
peter.
 
Written By: Peter Jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com
Carbon tax, eh? How much will I have to pay for the CO2 that I exhale?
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Depends: how good is your mileage?
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
There is no significant political demand for significantly less spending. The public likes big government. The only question is how they will get it. If you have a workable plan to get to a sharply limited government, good luck. I prefer to deal with reality as I find it.
Step one is not rolling over and giving up.

Anybody who believes that politicians of either party would ever eliminate one tax in order to enact a supposedly more benign one raise your hand. I didn’t think so.

The real answer is that they would enact an "effluent tax" and keep the payroll tax as well. There is no either/or proposition when it comes to big spending politicians.

Taxes will simply be the last principle that supposed conservatives will give up on their journey to becoming progressive socialists. Its the only one left.
 
Written By: DS
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider