TheAgitator.com
Why Not Pay More?
Friday, April 17th, 2009Every tax day, a handful of lefties pen paeans to the federal government, and how they do and the rest of us should feel inspired, patriotic, and invigorated when we pay our taxes.
Here’s one example from this year. Here’s another.
The sentiment is particularly misguided this year, as we begin year seven of a misguided war waged under false pretenses; we’re hearing new revelations every day about how the federal government has systematically violated our constitutional rights, and the human rights of others; and the government is spending billions, and risking trillions, to prop up private companies that took stupid risks and should have gone out of business for doing so–despite that the majority of the public opposes the bailouts.
Still, I always want to ask people who write these articles, why not pay more than your fair share, then? If greed (i.e., wanting to keep as much of your own money as possible) is evil, and if government really is so benevolent and wonderful (provided your party is running it, of course), why not pay double or triple what you owe? The point particularly applies to wealthier supporters of big government. But even journalists, I’d think, if they were true believers, could afford to send a quarterly $500 check to the federal treasury.
Think of it as a donation to your favorite charity–only a really, really awesome one that’s filled with noble, self-sacrificing public servants; is run by selfless politicians who run for office only out of the goodness of their hearts; never violates our rights, despite that it has the power to do so; wastes virtually no money at all on overhead or bureaucracy; and generally makes all of us all-around better human beings.
MORE: Hell, some of them publicly ask for assistance on how to pay less that what they rightfully owe.
I find it hard to think about how great it is to pay my taxes without thinking about recent appointees that skated by owing back taxes until it became politically important for them to pay up. I wouldn’t mind saving some of my money until it’s time to pay my way into a cabinet position, but I’m willing to bet that would earn me another check box on some list somewhere.
Thing is, it’s perfectly consistent to support a tax in the amount of an expense that you wouldn’t otherwise offer as a donation.
If I donate $10 to some worthy cause, the benefit to me is that my favored cause gains 10 dollars. If we pass a tax that funds a $10 donation to my cause from every citizen, the benefit to me is that my favored cause gains 3 billion dollars.
To imagine that one can get the same satisfaction by simply donating oneself is to suppose that $10 is the same as $3bn.
I don’t like it very much when people pass laws that cause my tax dollars to be spend in ways of which I disapprove, but I can’t sit here shaking my head pretending to not understand why they do it.
Laertes,
Thats exactly it. They want you to pay for their pet projects. They don’t understand that because their pet projects die without government funding is the surest sign of its failing in the market of ideas.
They can’t stand the fact and demand at gunpoint that you support it anyway.
Mr Cohen lost me at “tax dollars pay for roads.” As a libertarian, I don’t believe in roads.
like they don’t exist.
Wonder if the donations would be tax deductible?
After reading that last paragraph I almost felt compelled to slit my wrists.
It’s a classic Volunteer’s Dilemma. Saying that it would be good for everyone to do X in no way implies that it’s good for a single individual to do X alone, to little effect, while others freeload or merely stand and laugh. One doesn’t have to be a sucker to demonstrate good faith, and your characterization of “leftists’ favorite charity” is one of the most egregious strawmen I’ve seen in a while. Nobody thinks of government that way. Nobody. You’re so much better than that, such a post makes me wonder if your account was hacked to write such a thing.
But hey, lighten up, let’s play along. If anyone who objects to the “never tax anything ever” Fox/RNC astroturd should pay extra taxes to show their good faith, what should the anti-government people who showed up at those pity parties do to show theirs? How about not putting their money in those banks and markets they so despise? How about buying up all the produce and products that evil government regulators have declared unsafe? After all, they should be bargains, right? Oh yes, it’s easy to say that people who disagree should all wear hair shirts to show they’re serious, isn’t it? Where’s yours?
Who knows if those writers even pay taxes? Maybe they’re like Tom Daschle who was all for taxing the hell out of the rest of us but wasn’t all that into paying taxes himself.
That’s not a dilemma, Jeff. It’s a lot of things. But certainly “dilemma” is not among them.
It’s not a problem that can be waved away by claiming volunteer’s dilemma, even if it looks the part on the surface.
Every year, some billions of dollars get donated to various charities. Clearly, people have no problem overcoming the volunteer’s dilemma to get charities funded. If government really was a benevolent entity that efficiently produced positive results, one would expect at least some of those billions of charity dollars to be given freely to the government to expand it’s good works.
But alas, when it comes time for people to decide where to spend their charity dollars, virtually nobody, not even the people who think taxes are wonderful and government is wonderful seem to think government could put their money to work for the forces of good as well as any of a jillion charity organizations.
Wonder if the donations would be tax deductible?
My head just exploded.
I was just kidding about the roads, guys. Easy on the neg karma. I believe in their existence. It’s Friday…just making jokes!
Here’s a “joke”…scare quotes added because while it’s a true story of of my life today, the story comes with a punchline.
I tried to take a flight from USA to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam today and was denied a boarding pass at the ticket counter. My paperwork wasn’t completed properly. Apparently, there are rules in Vietnam.
I would assume that most people view it more as a business transaction; i.e. they’re paying for a service. And in most cases, even if you’re happy with a service and wouldn’t mind paying more for better/additional services from a company, you don’t just mail them a check and hope for the best.
I don’t know about you guys but I get a raging hard-on every time I look at my pay stub and see that almost a third of my check is gone, and going toward all these wonderful causes.
…why are you looking at me like that?
Because their story about how they meet their duty of paying taxes is usually just a lead-in so they can go on a rant about how other people should pay more taxes.
Most of those lefty journalists are, I’m going to assume, middle-class or lower middle-class in terms of income and a large number of them are part of a dying industry (print journalism). The impression I get is that most of their “the rich need to pay more” is really just bitterness at choosing a failed profession for which they want other, more successful people to suffer.
And Paul Begala, is a guy who (as far as I can tell) has never had a job that didn’t involve taking money from the government. So likely his biggest motivation for pushing for more taxes is because he apparently can’t envision a world in which people don’t suckle at the government teat for their livelihood.
Oh wait…sorry, I must have forgotten Begala’s stint on CNN as a “political contributor”. So his one private sector job apparently consists of him sharing with us the knowledge he gleaned from being a public sector leech.
I mean, it’s kind of sad…Begala can’t even claim that he really served a useful or semi-useful function in government. He was just some scuzzball hack whose primary reason for employment on was to put (and keep) scumbag politicians in office.
If government really was a benevolent entity that efficiently produced positive results, one would expect at least some of those billions of charity dollars to be given freely to the government to expand it’s good works.
So, you’re arguing that because people don’t arbitrarily mail the government money, they must not want it to expand, or enjoy the services it provides. Effectively, you’re saying that contribution and participation are markers of satisfaction. That’s fine. Except that people already determine the scope of government works by participating in the political process. Which suggests that they’re actually pretty happy with the government, else they’d vote for less of it.
#7 Jeff Darcy – Well put. Wear your huge pile of “zomg reading that made me feel saaaaaaad” points you got as a badge of honor.
Jeff Darcy,
The logical answer to that would be “not pay their taxes”. Unfortunately, since the government’s response to that is usually to seize all of your assets and throw you in prison, it’s not really a viable solution…assuming that you’re not a fan of prison or poverty.
This is absolutely incomprehensible gibberish. Seriously, I’ve read through it three times and I have no clue what you’re trying to say, except that you really don’t understand even the most basic principles of libertarian philosophy or free markets.
Tell you what…here’s a book to start you off down the path to enlightenment on those topics.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0156334607/theagitator-20/
Now go grow a brain.
@UCrawford: One can only assume it wasn’t intended to make sense (and succeeded fantastically, beyond his wildest expectations).
John,
At first I thought was just having a laugh…honestly, I couldn’t pick out a rational line of thought in his statement and thought that he had to be pulling peoples’ legs here. But then I realized that most of the arguments I’ve seen ripping on libertarians for disliking taxes are usually a combination of gibberish and flawed logic…usually, though, they’re just not that incoherent.
After all, if “progressive” liberals knew what they were talking about, they wouldn’t be “progressive” liberals. :)
Jeff, your second paragraph was completely incoherent. It reminded me of the debate scene from “Billy Madison.”
“Which suggests that they’re actually pretty happy with the government, else they’d vote for less of it.”
I must have missed that vote, I certainly haven’t seen it recently. In reality the problem isn’t that simple. People in Massachusetts elect thier Senators because they have political clout to get a lots of federal $$s for thier state say “The Big Dig” creating lots of jobs and some leaky tunnels. People in Alaska have the power to elect thier federal reps and get “The Bridge to Nowhere”. Now a person in massachusetts can rationally see the alaskan bridge is stupid, and an alaskan can see “The Big Dig” was a waste, but they don’t get that vote. Sure its hypocracy voting for the guy who is gonna get you the most federal dollars, because in the end it raises taxes for everybody. However the alternative is to elect a fiscal conservative that doesn’t request earmarks and then you are left with a smaller percentage of your taxes actually benefitting you.
Ja wohl, mein Commandant!
In reality the problem isn’t that simple.
C’mon, what does reality have to do with it? We’re practically in “if you like government so much WHY DON’T YOU MARRY IT?!?!” territory here.
#23 | Andrew Williams
Yeah! Where is Colonel Hogan when you need him?
It’s irritating, but it’s not definitively illogical or conniving.
Wanting the overall tax take to rise while wanting to minimise one’s own contribution within the law is not inconsistent. If loopholes are available to everyone else then you’re within your rights to use them. It’s like being opposed to the use of calculators in maths tests but taking one in anyway because it’s allowed and everyone else does.
The active and substantial tax evasion of super-rich liberals like Bono is as galling as it is hypocritical, but I’m not sure the same applies in this case unless I’m wrong and he actually is breaking laws.
Paul Bengala or however you spell his name has his head up his butt… We shouldn’t be sacrificing for our government, it should be the other way around!
[...] "Why Not Pay More?" Originally published: 17 April 2009 Submitted by: U.S. Common Sense Summary: Asking why people such as Paul Begala, who refer to April 15th as "Patriot’s Day" doesn’t give the government more than what is required in their taxes. [...]
I have the same question about N-dot and his Pigou Club: if paying higher prices for gasoline is so great, why don’t you do so now? Perhaps the oil company doesn’t have an easy way to collect your money, but you could always donate the difference between what you consider the “socially responsible” price and the pump price to a charity. This should provide the required incentive to shift your own consumption. Furthermore, since you Pigovians have obviously given this a great deal of thought, why don’t you shift your consumption accordingly now?
The answer, of course, is because they want these things *for other people*.
[...] or bureaucracy; and generally makes all of us all-around better human beings.1 Radley Balko – Why Not Pay More? [↩] « Über öffentliches Eigentum und Nazis Dieser Eintrag wurde von Benjamin [...]
[...] via The Agitator » Blog Archive » Why Not Pay More?. [...]