Tax Virtue: The Golden Mean

Natural Born Conservative ^ | December 4, 2011 | Larry Walker, Jr.

[lainde]

Such an impressive list...Thank you! BTTT for later read.

[shibumi]

I think we have a new record here for Blog Pimping.

30 (count ‘em) ~THIRTY~ self directed links to a single blog in one post.

It’s kind of like one of those old sitcom episodes where the cast needs a week off, so they make a story from outtakes of all the previous shows.

[JRandomFreeper]

You expect for someone to read through that long-winded screen? Har. I won't read it, and I won't click on it.

If you don't engage me in the first 200 words, fergetit.

Now, if it was interesting.... I've read some long-winded stuff here on FR.

But you? You failed that test.

/johnny

[newheart]

Pfl

Incredible list

[anonsquared]

Larry, Thank you for compiling all the data, very interesting!

I just read ‘Obama’s 1950s Tax Fallacy’ and ‘We Are All Billionaires Now’ as I was intrigued by the titles. Will peruse the rest as time allows.

I do believe that the reason the powers that be are pushing the tax-the-rich meme (including the rich like Warren Buffett), is to raise the capital gains tax from 15% to something much higher.

The US government and everyone it supports are looking at the baby boomers, who have been working their arses off for years, getting ready to put their feet up and enjoy a well earned rest. Those baby boomers will no longer be getting an income that can be confiscated through income tax and instead will be trying to live off the interest on their savings.

Let’s face it, the 15% in capital gains tax on that interest will not cover the bloated government worker salaries, the subsidies to connected businesses (ag, oil, etc), or the vote buying from every pandering politician. Those in power have to raise the capital gains rate to at least the 28% to 35% rate that most of the middle class pay on their income currently. If they don’t the shortfall may have to actually be paid by the Warren Buffetts and we all know that’s not going to happen!

What amazes me is how they have convinced the idiot hordes to call for “taxing the rich”. The real rich will have special new accounting rules and deductions that protect them from the increases. Just like the AMT, Alternative Minimum Tax, that was to make sure “millionaires” paid something, any new tax scheme will not be indexed to inflation and instead will hit the middle class the most.

P.S. I don’t mind a blog like yours that shares info and charts without ads. Thanks again for all of your hard work.

[shibumi]

While your Promethean attempt at blog pimping stands as overtly offensive on its own. I should take a moment to point out that your whole characterization of taxation as something amenable to The Golden Mean stands as a horrific fallacy.

While sounding lofty and reasonable, The Golden Mean is only applicable to things in which moderation is a virtue. In matters involving moral absolutes it is anything but.

You would (I hope) not try to make the case that a person who was a philanderer, mugger or murderer was achieving some sort of moderate balance if they only did those things on even numbered days. Or perhaps we are to picture the philanderer only seducing half the women he lusted for, the murderer only beating you halfway to death or perhaps only killing every other person he attacked. Maybe the mugger achieves moral rectitude when he only takes half of your money (a particularly fitting analogy in this case.)

Taxation of income is an objective moral evil and I don't particularly care what Calvin Coolidge said about it. This nation existed for close to a century and a half without taxation of income and there's no reason it can't do the same thing today.

The only reason income tax is perpetuated as a revenue stream is because of its value to the left as a tool for social engineering. No man owns the fruit of another man's labor, creativity or industry and the government does not have any rights that free men do not cede to it.

Not only is income taxation objectively immoral, it is economically counterproductive. It stifles the profit motive and thus slows the expansion of the economic base. In an American economy freed from personal (and corporate, because corporations are people too) taxes, the economic explosion that would result would make traditional sources of revenue such as transaction fees and tariffs explode in such an embarrassment of riches that they would most likely have to be curtailed to avoid a glut.

Finally, I would refer you to the words of two with whom I agree on some things and not on others, but whose wisdom on aspects of this particular subject is indisputable.

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

- Barry Goldwater, 1964 (Paraphrasing Marcus Tullius Cicero)

"In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit."

- Ayn Rand (From Galt's Speech)

P.S.

If you love The Golden Mean so much that you feel compelled to find a use for it, try picture frames.

You will find that a ratio of 1:1.6 works quite well.

(Phi)

[DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis]

That sure is a lot of blog links. Dude.

[Absolutely Nobama]

You gotta give this one some credit: A gazillion pimpings all in one shot. At least it’s economical.

If you scoll up and down real fast on this post, it’s almost psychadelic.

GROOOOOVY, dude.....The colors.....the colors.....

BTW, you’re on target as always.....

[50mm]

30 (count ‘em) ~THIRTY~ self directed links to a single blog in one post.

The technique must be relatively effective. Think about those crappy TV commercials by ambulance-chasing shyster lawyers and schlockware-hawking infomercialists hammering you with 1-800 phone numbers a couple of dozen times in 30 seconds.

[NaturalBornConservative]

Thanks for your kind words!

[NaturalBornConservative]

Thanks for your kind words!

[NaturalBornConservative]

30 (count ‘em) ~THIRTY~ self directed links to a single blog in one post.

Actually there are 34 links to 34 articles, imbedded with other links to other sites, so there could be a thousand links all in one post.

[shibumi]

"Actually there are 34 links to 34 articles, imbedded with other links to other sites, so there could be a thousand links all in one post."

OK, so you get the prize as "Mega Pimp of the Week."

You still have not offered any defense (not that one is possible) for your premise, which is faulty no matter how many times you link it, italicize it, boldface it or apply sophistry to it.

You can take consolation in your Pimpin' Prize, a bright shiny new Pimp Bike. It's yours to keep, so you can dazzle your readers when they see through the vapidity of your arguments.

"Ride On!"

[NaturalBornConservative]

"You still have not offered any defense (not that one is possible) for your premise."

I offered neither premise, nor conclusion, nor have I advertised products, or solicited lucre. Thus, there is nothing to defend. Next blog post!

[NaturalBornConservative]

While sounding lofty and reasonable, The Golden Mean is only applicable to things in which moderation is a virtue.

So you're saying that moderation cannot be applied to income taxes?

This nation existed for close to a century and a half without taxation of income and there's no reason it can't do the same thing today.

I think that's covered in -- Taxing the Rich – 1765 to 2011, Parts I, II, and III -- "Believing the income tax to be unconstitutional, President Grover Cleveland refused to sign it. The Act became law in 1894 without his signature, but was ruled to be unconstitutional in the following year. In 1895, the Supreme Court..." "The freedoms won by Americans in 1776 were lost in the revolution of 1913." ~Frank Chodorov During the first 137 years of American history (1776 – 1912), the income tax only existed for 11 years, while no income tax was imposed upon private citizens for 126 years.

[shibumi]

"the objective has been to define the golden mean, with respect to income taxes. "

Inherent premise: That the can be a "golden mean with respect to income taxes."

If you offer no conclusions, then what's the point of your writing? Prosaic meandering perhaps?

As for advertising, that's obvious. You are advertising your blog and you have made 34 attempts in one post to draw traffic from FreeRepublic without even the simple courtesy of a single linkback in that long list of recommended blogs and sources at your site.

That is discourteous at best.

[shibumi]

"So you're saying that moderation cannot be applied to income taxes?"

You got it.

You cannot have a "moderate" amount of an objective evil.

[Absolutely Nobama]

As a blogger of dubious value (I’m being honest here. I write fact-based hit pieces that drip with venom about people I don’t like. We’re a dime a dozen.) to society, I always try to give my fellow bloggers the benefit of the doubt. I know how good the praise feels and I know how lousy falling flat on one’s face feels. (I’ve written my share of dogs, too.)

HOWEVER——

This is pimping arrogance I would never dream of.

[NaturalBornConservative]

You cannot have a "moderate" amount of an objective evil.

I guess it depends on one's definition of evil. U.S. income taxes were conceived in war, another objective evil, I suppose. But tariffs also lead to war, and with its demise came the income tax. Sounds like a Catch 22, "Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to."