Taxes
|
L Taxes |
Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:19 pm |
It was interesting to read your views on taxes. You seem to
emphasize *less* tax. But isn't it more important to promote *good*
government over smaller government? The main Libertarian thinktank (Cato
Institute) released a study showing that 19% taxation is the best level to
avoid government waste. Any lower than that, and people internalize the
fact that government services are "cheap", and we get waste; any more than
that, and we get wasted because we're paying too much taxes. Here's what
the Chairman of Cato says:
"The "Starve the Beast" assertion is inconsistent with the facts, at
least since 1980. My study finds that there was a strong negative
relation between the federal spending percent of GDP and the federal
revenue percent of GDP from 1981 through 2005, even controlling for the
unemployment rate.
An increased belief in the "Starve the Beast" assertion has
substantially reduced the traditional Republican concern for fiscal
responsibility - leading to a pattern of tax cuts, increased spending,
and increased deficits. This pattern has been strongest during the
current Bush administration, primarily because the Republicans control
both the administration and a majority of both houses of Congress."
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/05/11/starve-the-beast-just-does-not-work/
See also his earlier 2004 article:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v26n2/cpr-26n2-2.pdf
I'd be interested to know what you think about the above. After
reading these, are you *still* religiously anti-tax?
|
Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:52 pm |
Niskanen is an embarrassment to the Cato Institute. It looks like he ran a regression between x: the gov revenue as % of GDP and y: the government spending. He got an equation, and then playing with this equation he found out that if x were around 19%, the government spending would be "stabilized" (whatever the heck it means). So he recommends the gov revenue of 19% of GDP. The variables x and y are not independent so the regression yields spurious results.
|
Mary Taxes |
Thu Jun 29, 2006 3:03 pm |
L, I kind of have to agree with Uno here.
In fact, if you look at the 2004 pdf, it seems that Niskaren makes the point that if anything is inversely related with anything else, then one is the cause of the other, and that's just not mathematically true.
Because Niskaren found a negative relationship between tax and revenue (and only since the year 81!!), he says, "What is going on? The most direct interpretation of this relation is that it represents a demand curve..." That is such strange reasoning! That's like saying for any two things that may be negatively correlated, that one is the demand curve of the other - that's kind of crazy.
|
Thu Jun 29, 2006 3:32 pm |
L, thanks for your post.
Uno and Mary, thanks for your replies. I agree the study may be technically flawed.
I'd like to focus on the bigger issue though. It's not simply that government waste ought to be reduced. It is on making sure that what the government spends money on is defending life, liberty, and property, not redistributing money to cronies and politically connected special interest groups.
One way to go about that is to continually reduce the amount of money that is at the government's disposal until there is only enough for the fundamentals of justice. In other words, slash taxes across the board.
Phil
|
treasureman fair tax |
Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:34 pm |
what do you think of the fair tax?you should talk more about it,its what most people want and it may bring more people to you,just a throught.
|
Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:56 pm |
Hi treasureman,
I like the fair tax. Thanks for bringing it up. For those not aware of it, it's a proposal to replace all income taxes, including Social Security, payroll, estate, capital gains, dividends, etc., with one single national retail sales tax of 23% of the tax-inclusive price. It also reimburses all taxes up to the poverty level, and it does so a month in advance (called a "prebate") so the poor still end up paying no federal taxes. It's a great plan for a lot of reasons. The main website for it is at http://www.fairtax.org.
You're right. I should talk more about it. One of my upcoming town meetings will focus on taxes and spending and the fair tax will figure prominently in it.
To be sure, I would also vote for it with a lower number than 23% to replace all current taxes while simultaneously reducing taxes.
Thanks for writing,
Phil Maymin
|
treasureman tax |
Sat Sep 09, 2006 9:22 am |
the more i ask you something and you answer the more i like you,lets hope we can get out to everyone about the fair tax,we need it.maybe you should get ahold of neial bortz and have him come to help you out with the fair tax,hes got a great following and for you here in ct. it would mean VOTES.how come we don't see your name on the list for the debaits?you should demand to be there,i don't get it,your running and they don't invite you,why not??
|
Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:12 am |
Hi treasureman,
Thank you very much!
I will likely be in nearly all of the debates. Things should be finalized within a couple of weeks. I will put it up on the home page as soon as it is.
Thanks again, and all the best,
Phil Maymin
|
treasureman taxes |
Wed Sep 13, 2006 2:03 pm |
will they be on tv?and can we come to watch them?good luck its time to clean house and get some new blood in there and get rid of people who once in forget about who put them in and are only looking out for themdlefs.
|
Thu Sep 14, 2006 2:45 pm |
Hi treasureman,
As soon as the information about the debates is available, we'll put it on the home page.
Thanks for all your posts,
Phil Maymin