Tenets of the Free Market Warrior (Click on the numbered items to read more) This formula is as old as the Bible and as sound as ever. And we mean all taxes. There should be no inheritance (death) tax, no sales taxes, no excise or real estate tax; no tariffs; and no additional state and local taxes. Let the municipality have 1%, the state 3% and the federal government 6%. And no government borrowing. If the money's not there, they'll just have to wait till next year.
The simplicity of this alone will save millions of hours of labor among those who administer the various overlapping tax systems and those who try to comply with them. Unlike phony Keynesian tax-cuts , these will actually encourage people to be more productive by improving their incentives to produce. But the best benefit of all is that it will force congress to do the most natural, normal, and healthy thing imaginable. They will have to take a limited amount of money and prioritize their objectives. When they run out, they'll just have to stop. I can't think of anything more likely to turn Congressmen and Senators back into human beings.
A case can be made that we'll need an exception in the event of foreign invasion or national emergency. If we're going to allow for this, there needs to be two provisos: 1. Extra taxation and/or borrowing can only be authorized by a national plebiscite (The same body that spends the money—Congress—cannot be empowered to set the tax rate. That's what got us into this mess in the first place.) 2. All such authorizations are temporary and expire after one year unless they are renewed by another plebiscite. (Wars have always been an excuse for curtailments of the people's liberty that last long after the war is over.)
We have no problem with the government asking people to voluntarily contribute additional money to a specific project. The voluntary contributions, of over $2 billion, to the victims of 9-11 (over $500,000 per victim), demonstrates the generosity of Americans when the cause is compelling. This ought to be particularly easy to implement because it's already the law of the land (see The Constitution). We just need to follow it. The Federal government should protect us from outside aggression, conduct foreign policy, print the money , enforce a very limited number of Federal laws (against espionage, counterfeiting, inter-state flight, etc.) and that's it. No departments of labor, Commerce, agriculture, interior, HUD, Education, HHS, etc.
A government trimmed down thus will have no difficulty existing on 6% of our income. This will unemploy thousands of lobbyists who will no longer be needed to sway the actions of government in areas where the government will no longer hold sway. Usually drawn from the most highly educated and industrious segments of the workforce, these former lobbyists will make exceptional contributions when they reenter the productive economy.
No one doubts how this change will be greeted by those who have made a life of living off our bureaucratic morass. It will be like wrestling the last needle away from a junkie. But the counter arguments are pretty weak (although very shrill).
It will be said that we're moving backwards (by those who reserve to themselves the right to determine which direction is forwards—nice work if you can get it.)
It will be said that the country can't survive without the government maintaining all these functions. Of course, we did just fine without them for most of our history.
It will be said that the dislocation of so many federal employees will rock the economy. In truth they'll be fairly easy to buy off. Once we stop hiring more government workers in the effected departments, we can phase-out the rest in a few years by offering those who voluntarily leave, two years of full salary after they go. They then have plenty of time to find a new job and can even collect a double salary. There will be plenty of volunteers. And the beauty of this is that since government workers don't produce anything, it really doesn't make much economic difference whether you pay them to work or not to work. (Except, of course, in the latter case, after two years the problem is solved).
Finally, it will be said that we'll be taking vast amounts of money away from education, the arts, poor people, the disabled etc. This of, of course, is the greatest lie of all. In truth, we will not be taking one penny away; merely returning it to the people who earned it so they can spend it on education, the arts, the poor etc. as they see fit. Now, if you're seriously one of those people who believes that the country is made up greedy, ignorant, selfish people who produce, earn and invest (in the private economy); and wonderfully wise, generous and selfless people (who work for the government) this is probably not the website for you! This is less critical as competition among states (between which citizens can readily relocate) will discourage excessive taxation or profligacy. Still, in addition to limiting the budget to 3% of its citizens earnings (imagine states competing over which can produce the healthiest business climate?) states must be prevented from interfering with the private contracts entered into by individuals.
The state has an important role enforcing contracts and refereeing disputes. But the constitutional principal needs to be that as long as the purpose of a contract is not itself criminal (a contract to commit murder, e.g.) the state has no interest in the terms of a contract as long as both parties are agreeable. A great deal of mischief has been done over the years on the grounds that the state is in a better position to judge the interests of individuals than the individuals themselves.
Also, just as we must stop the abuse of eminent domain, the whole category of involuntary transfers of property must be constitutionally proscribed. The right of the individual to maintain the fruit of his labor and dispense with it as he sees fit, is surely the most fundamental human right of all. Without it, all other rights are pointless. A state which may transfer wealth from one individual to another for the reason that it prefers to see it in the possession of the latter, has no limit; and the individual no safety under such a regime. Common sense legislation, whether to prohibit murder or robbery or assault, will have no trouble achieving the necessary super majority. Prospective laws that are barely able to accumulate 51% support, we are better off without. The purpose of law in a free society is to prohibit a small category of strongly anti-social behaviors abhorred by virtually all. It is not to impose the will of narrow majorities on large minorities.
|
Agenda of the Free Market Warrior
