Monday, October 20, 2008
Taxation isn't socialism, dammit.
MC McCain is following the trail blazed by the conservative establishment (NRO, Rush, etc) in claiming that tax policy is socialism.
In the first place, both parties have been using tax policy to spread the wealth in various ways forever, so if it's socialism both parties are equally socialist.
MC McCain made a special point of helping to blackmail his own party into passing the Goldman Coup, which is unquestionably the largest one-time redistribution ever.
So he's in no position to criticize Obama (who also favored the Goldman Coup) when Obama wants to make a rather small increase in EITC, a more traditional wealth-spreading program first developed by Nixon.
In the second place, properly defined socialism ... government ownership of business ... sometimes leads to less taxation. Why? Because full ownership means the govt can run the enterprise responsibly and take its profits to displace the need for taxation. Consider the New Deal power utilities, TVA and Bonneville. Both have been operating competently for 70 years, offering low-cost electricity to consumers. These utilities followed a common practice in the '30s when towns ran their own power plants, bringing in enough money that they didn't need to charge any form of tax.
The Great Nation Robbery has all the worst aspects of socialism: waste, corruption, lack of accountability ... and none of the good aspects. Our govt now owns several big banks. When you own something, you can tell it what to do. We could order these banks to resume lending to good customers, order them to resume interbank lending. Nope, we still let them behave irresponsibly. We're paying the piper but we're not calling the tune; the piper is still free to drink and carouse in fancy casinos. = = = = = Much later update, Feb 2016: I took a closer look at Soviet taxation and found that it agreed with my assumptions here. Income tax in USSR was considerably lower than in US. ¶ 1:12 PM
In the first place, both parties have been using tax policy to spread the wealth in various ways forever, so if it's socialism both parties are equally socialist.
MC McCain made a special point of helping to blackmail his own party into passing the Goldman Coup, which is unquestionably the largest one-time redistribution ever.
So he's in no position to criticize Obama (who also favored the Goldman Coup) when Obama wants to make a rather small increase in EITC, a more traditional wealth-spreading program first developed by Nixon.
In the second place, properly defined socialism ... government ownership of business ... sometimes leads to less taxation. Why? Because full ownership means the govt can run the enterprise responsibly and take its profits to displace the need for taxation. Consider the New Deal power utilities, TVA and Bonneville. Both have been operating competently for 70 years, offering low-cost electricity to consumers. These utilities followed a common practice in the '30s when towns ran their own power plants, bringing in enough money that they didn't need to charge any form of tax.
The Great Nation Robbery has all the worst aspects of socialism: waste, corruption, lack of accountability ... and none of the good aspects. Our govt now owns several big banks. When you own something, you can tell it what to do. We could order these banks to resume lending to good customers, order them to resume interbank lending. Nope, we still let them behave irresponsibly. We're paying the piper but we're not calling the tune; the piper is still free to drink and carouse in fancy casinos. = = = = = Much later update, Feb 2016: I took a closer look at Soviet taxation and found that it agreed with my assumptions here. Income tax in USSR was considerably lower than in US. ¶ 1:12 PM
