National Socialism Geographic
The current issue of National Geographic (August), in addition to the usual propaganda about global warming, chastises the United States for a poor family leave policy.
The one-page feature called "Who Gives Parents a Break?" opens with the statement that "American moms-to-be might consider a move to Slovenia. While U.S. law guarantees a mere 12 weeks of unpaid leave under certain conditions, the least of any industrialized nation, the relatively poor central European country offers far more substantial benefits."
The color-coded map of the world above the article's text shows that, of the countries where data is available, only the United States, Australia, Liberia, and Papua New Guinea have no "guaranteed leave for mothers." In other words, most countries in the world are socialist paradises.
It goes without saying that there is nothing wrong with any company having a family leave policy. The problem is a government-mandated family leave policy instead of a voluntary agreement between an employer and an employee.
Comments (22)
Yeah, but those countries that do mandate family leave, shouldn't repeal such laws, because voters can just re-institute them later, with even MORE burdensome requirements!
Oh, sorry, I was just channeling your arguments against the FairTax.
Published: July 26, 2007 10:20 AM
And in the secular climate of those countries, birth rates have fallen below the replacement level.
Published: July 26, 2007 11:33 AM
From The Law by Frederic Bastiat:
**
Mr. de Lamartine once wrote to me thusly: "Your doctrine is only the half of my program. You have stopped at liberty; I go on to fraternity." I answered him: "The second half of your program will destroy the first."
In fact, it is impossible for me to separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. I cannot possibly understand how fraternity can be legally enforced without liberty being legally destroyed, and thus justice being legally trampled underfoot
Legal plunder has two roots: One of them, as I have said before, is in human greed; the other is in false philanthropy.
...
Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.
We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.
**
Today's version is similar: "Why is the United States against family leave from companies?"
Published: July 26, 2007 12:45 PM
I'll bet that the average woman in the US could quit her job and then start looking for another one a decade later, and still be far better off financially than the "lucky" Slovenian woman who gets her government imposed leave.
Published: July 26, 2007 1:36 PM
Speaking of FairTax, here's a notable article that understands the importance of not letting weak arguments against it, stand in the way:
--(Fair Use excerpts from)--
Where is the outrage over sky-high taxes, regulatory costs?
by Steve Higgins
7/15/07 - New Haven (CT) Register
"Reports last week from two nonprofit groups should serve as a wake-up call to Americans to start agitating for tax reform . . .
"On Monday, the Competitive Enterprise Institute reported that the cost to consumers of complying with federal regulations exceeded $1 trillion in 2006 . . . almost 10 percent of the nation's gross domestic product. It's nearly half the amount of government spending.
"Even more worrisome, the cost of complying with these multitudinous regulations exceeds the amount of individual income tax paid in 2006, about $998 billion, as well as corporate incomes taxes of $277 billion.
"According to the Washington, DC-based advocacy group [ Americans for Tax Reform ], the average American had to work through July 11 this year just to pay all federal, state and local taxes, as well as regulatory costs including workers' compensation and unemployment benefits.
"Congress should take one of two paths: Either cut tax rates and government spending drastically, or adopt the FairTax, an innovative proposal that would involve abolishing the Internal Revenue Service and its income tax and replacing it with a simple national sales tax."
--(End excerpts)--
. . . The U.S. income tax system and the U.S. economy are inter-related, and are in DIRE trouble. If we, the citizens of these United States, do not act aggressively to spread the FairTax plan with family, friends and associates - our "nest eggs" stand to be devastated through a coming economic meltdown (Summary with podcast: "Laurence J. Kotlikoff (*) on Long-Term Fiscal Problems in the U.S.").
Politicians are putting demogoguery and pandering above responsible governing - and they're able to do it because Americans do NOT understand - at the "get go" - politicians' / bankers' hunger for ever-increasing shares of the working person's bi-weekly paycheck; Americans do NOT understand the totality of taxes they pay. The FairTax shines the "light of day" on this, putting citizens back in charge to forcefully demand spending reductons.
YOU AND I MUST ACT to mobilize public opinion, and get the FairTax enacted, because the signs point to a probable devaluation of the dollar (reissuance of an "Amero" ? - under a U.S.-sovereignty-busting North American Union?).
[ NOTE: Does this help clarify your understanding of what's going on globally? a) Bush's persistence on rewarding illegal immigration? b) the North American Highway now under construction in Texas (to stream cheap labor into the covertly-planned North American Union marketplace designed to compete with 21st-century China market? c) the gradual increase in value of the Chinese yuan by China corresponding to China's economic growth? (This will result in the dumping of dollar-denominated debt as its manufacturing economy grows stronger - which guarantees devaluing and ushering-in of the Amero.) ]
Keep in mind, this NAU strategy - supported by the "super-rich" (member-owners of the Fed) - together with their politician buddies who want NOTHING to do with FairTax - runs contrary to simply making the U.S. a "tax free zone" for business under the FairTax. Politicians and bankers lose power when the U.S. is returned to a "savings-driven economy" from a "debt/interest-driven" economy).
Powerful "elites," members of political and monied-interest "clubs" reaching into the halls of power in Washington, depend on keeping you and me uninformed of their plans. It is up to YOU and ME to ACT - and not live in a state of denial - based on what we now know is clearly happening to our financial futures.
After you consult the Kotlikoff interview (above):
• (If you're a member of your State FairTax organization) Contact your state or local FairTax Director to learn what you can do.
• (If you're just learning about the FairTax bill) Join FairTax.org here: Scrap The CODE, NOW !
Published: July 26, 2007 3:45 PM
Ian, what you fail to understand is Laurence_Vance's masterful argument that if the FairTax passes, people might one day pass stupid laws, like re-imposing the income tax. So obviously, you're a statist who doesn't understand that taxes are bad.
Oh, sorry, there I go again, channeling Vance...
Published: July 26, 2007 3:59 PM
Too bad the fairtax is just another tax. I just hate not paying federal sales tax.
Published: July 26, 2007 4:34 PM
Can't mises.org ban Person from posting? Nasty little trolls aren't needed.
Published: July 26, 2007 9:42 PM
It's interesting to me that the leading FairTax proponents don't support Ron Paul, who (like them, allegedly) wants to abolish the IRS once and for all. . .with the added bonus that he doesn't want to replace the income tax with an equally burdensome tax.
You'd think that if they supported: (1) Get rid of IRS and income tax + (2) replace it with sales tax; they might support just (1), with no (2) added!
But they don't. They'd rather keep their heads down and try to power the FT through, God love 'em.
Published: July 27, 2007 6:43 AM
DC: Many FairTax proponents DO support Ron Paul. But (and I can't believe I have to explain this to you) one need not advocate *lowering* taxes to support making the existing level of taxation less complicated and burdensome, and vice versa. A bill to simply lower taxes to what Paul wants, wouldn't pass. The FairTax is a way to reduce the power of the federal government in a way that appeals to a lot of people.
It would be nice if taxes were lower. It would be nice if the tax code were less complicated. I would be double-nice if the taxes were lower AND less complicated. Even a partial victory is better than none.
You know what would be REALLY nice, though? If libertarian FairTax opponents actually came up with a serious argument against it that meets my extremely low standards!
Published: July 27, 2007 8:39 AM
Person, many FT supporters may in fact support Ron Paul (hey, the more the merrier). But the co-authors of the FT don't (Neal Boortz, the neocon, and his congressional co-author John Linder). Both are campaigning heavily on this issue, and Neal Boortz himself both actively supports other Republican candidates and has dismissed Paul as incapable of leading the US.
In my personal experience, for I have quite a few friends that support the FT, none of them are Ron Paul supporters. You seemed to miss this implicit point: There is nothing in principle that keeps a FT proponent from also supporting Ron Paul. But, of course, I wasn't denying this.
Also, there have been serious arguments presented against the FT on Mises.org, both in articles and comments, but as I recall your strategy was: (1)to sum up whatever was said using overly simplistic and inaccurate language, and then (2)to deny those 'new arguments' categorically on the basis of your replacement terminology. Classic straw man fallacy, classic Person.
Published: July 27, 2007 12:41 PM
DC: I wasn't straw manning anyone. I'm honestly interested in hearing a serious argument against the FairTax. Really. And everything did fit into the categories I listed.
Hypothetically, how would you respond to my argument that "no country should repeal its family leave laws because voters could just re-institute more stringent ones later"? And would that response also refute the argument that "after the FairTax, we'll have both a sales and income tax"?
Published: July 27, 2007 9:42 PM
Naysayers railing against the FairTax become, ipso facto, defenders of the an INCOME TAX system that has enabled the profligate spending that IS bringing the country to an economic meltdown (*). Do FairTax naysayers really believe:
• Workers love having their pay confiscated, hourly, through gov't withholding and don't mind getting their money back by involuntary servitude - to the tune of 50 hours/year (on average) - preparing an annual tax return?
• That certifying the number of persons in your family (annually, and, ancillarily, upon change in household) is an abrogation of our freedom - more intrusive and complex than filing a tax return every year subject to threats and intimidation by theIRS.
• It's better to have theIRS fishing through citizens' income transactions (complete with audits, interest, penalties, and threats against individuals, families, businesses as well as confiscation of their homes, property, and bank accounts) rather than - Gawd forbid - issuing a gov't check to an individual (while pretending that Social Security payments disbursement logistics really can't work for "prebates")?
• That an monthly advance tax rebate is the same thing as "being on the dole" ? (Only lobbyists, special interests, and business deserve "handouts" ? - the politician gets a payoff from a lobbyist, the lobbyist gets a payoff from its client, and the citizen gets higher taxes and/or prices that pay for it all.)
• "Hidden taxes" in higher prices are fine because they're not "taxes"? (Hey, forget that families are really paying business's costs for complying with a business income tax codes - staff, consultants, submittals, etc.)
• It's far better to have a gargantuan tax collection "service" in Washington, than to have 50 decentralized, smaller, leaner state collection agencies collecting taxes from fewer sources?
• That the work by notable economists (paid tens of millions of $'s by Americans for Fair Taxation) doesn't carry weight because it was paid for by private funds instead of some gov't / quasi-gov't enterprise?
• That FairTax's backing by many economists (**) doesn't carry any weight because (the Brookings') Wm Gale's testimony before the President's Commission on Tax Reform is - somehow - above all that?!
(NOTE: The Commission/Gale made up their own "consumption tax" requirements, as if that constituted a legitimate rebuke of the FairTax plan. Dr. Kotlikoff has requested - but never received - Gale's technical "modus operandi" which would definitively explain just how Gale's conclusions can be reconciled with Kotlikoff's well-documented technical work (***).
(*) MOST OMINOUSLY, WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME FOR THE FIX THAT FAIRTAX WILL PROVIDE. Prof. Kotlikoff elaborates: http://snipurl.com/meltdowninprogress
(**) http://snipurl.com/econsopenletter (Lists every tax that FairTax will eliminate, together with the power they represent to pol's and lobbyists.)
(***) http://snipurl.com/taxpanelrebutted
The time for sitting around, pontificating, is over. We have NO CHOICE but to ACT: http://snipr.com/scrapthecode
Once the FairTax is law - the citizens will begin to understand how much better off they are - and how much more empowered they've become. Those - like me, and others - who will have volunteered massive amounts of personal time at great personal cost to ensure passage of the FairTax - will be off work of project to solidify and battle-harden the gains. I see those projects as government spending, term limits, and elimination of the Federal Reserve system - in that order.
Published: July 27, 2007 10:13 PM
Can you say 'hyperbole' boys and girls? Of course you can!
Published: July 28, 2007 10:49 AM
Person, you write:
I wasn't straw manning anyone. I'm honestly interested in hearing a serious argument against the FairTax. Really. And everything did fit into the categories I listed.
No, it didn't seem like you were, and, no, your categories didn't work. But I won't argue this here, because we've already *had* that debate. You are precise with language when you want to be, and you are imprecise when that works to your advantage, instead.
Person writes:
Hypothetically, how would you respond to my argument that "no country should repeal its family leave laws because voters could just re-institute more stringent ones later"? And would that response also refute the argument that "after the FairTax, we'll have both a sales and income tax"?
Hypothetically, I would say "that sounds like a bad reason to oppose removing those harmful laws."
That response would not refute the latter claim, though, since taxing is an issue of constitutional authority, not the utilitarian, de facto benefits or harm associated with a law. The particular objection that you are referring to isn't a utilitarian concern.
By the way, what is the constitutional authority for a federal sales tax? I don't think that I've ever heard a case for it.
Published: July 28, 2007 10:56 AM
As a market anarchist, I am against any and all taxation - including the fair tax. Is it better than the current method of robbery though? Yes.
Published: July 28, 2007 6:44 PM
DC: Hypothetically, I would say "that sounds like a bad reason to oppose removing those harmful laws."
Okay, then you understand why I think at least one of the arguments against the FairTax is ridiculous.
That response would not refute the latter claim, though, since taxing is an issue of constitutional authority, not the utilitarian, de facto benefits or harm associated with a law.
Sorry, every time I've seen the "we'll end up later, after additional laws, with a sales and income tax" argument, it's been of the form "and that would be a bad *consequence*", not "and that would be unconstitutional" -- which wouldn't make sense with the argument anyway. I'm not even sure consitutional arguments make sense in this context, either: "I think we should remove the executive's authority to deploy troops". "But that's unconstitutional!"
Anthony: well put. That's basically how I feel about this. If only I could find an intellectually honest libertarian to convince me otherwise...
Published: July 29, 2007 6:40 PM
I'm not even sure consitutional arguments make sense in this context, either: "I think we should remove the executive's authority to deploy troops". "But that's unconstitutional!"
Oh, you mean to say by analogy that the FT revokes the 16th amendment? In that case, I take back everything that I've ever said against it.
:)
I already said that I'm not going to argue the merits or weaknesses of the FT here (especially since it wasn't the subject of the blog post!). But you are clearly trying to present your opponents' argument in the worst possible light while still claiming that it's the same 'argument.' Fair enough, but nobody is impressed when that straw man gets knocked down.
Better, and more convincing, would be to present your opponents' argument more strongly than they can themselves (if possible) and then show why it is misled or doesn't do what it claims. At the very least, it makes it seem like you've understood the claims of your interlocutor.
Not that I expect to see that from you, but I thought I'd at least get our conversation back on track. . .
Published: July 30, 2007 6:17 AM
DC: Oh, you mean to say by analogy that the FT revokes the 16th amendment? In that case, I take back everything that I've ever said against it.
No, you wouldn't, and that's the problem. If the FT were instead "abolish 16th amendment, amend constitution to allow sales tax at national level, implement tax", you could just as easily say, "but later voters could re-implement that amendment, and then we'd have BOTH an income AND a sales tax". Once you allow the argument that voters could later undermine the proposal, all bets are off. It's this lack of rigor that so upsets me when looking for an hoenst argument against the FairTax.
But you are clearly trying to present your opponents' argument in the worst possible light while while still claiming that it's the same 'argument.' Fair enough, but nobody is impressed when that straw man gets knocked down.
Nobody's impressed because they don't understand that I highlighted the fundamental principle behind the argument, which makes it look stupid because it *is* stupid. Rather than trying to patch up opponents' logical flaws for them, my focus should be on identifying the fundamental principle they're appealing to when they make the argument, and see if they still agree with it.
And the FT is absolutely relevant to this discussion because Vance's exact arguments against it explain why other countries shouldn't abolish their family leave laws. Just as in Vance's dishonest FT articles, I can say:
1) If France abolishes its Family Leave Law (FLL), they'll botch it in commitee and end up passing some other regulation in its stead. Then France would end up with the FLL *and* a new regulation.
2) The plan to abolish France's FLL, would leave the 35-hr workweek cap UNTOUCHED! Employees could STILL only have work contracts involving 35 hrs/week! People who support the plan to abolish the FLL, therefore don't understand that employment regulations are bad.
Therefore, France should not abolish it's FLL.
Wait -- how did you feel about those arguments? Well, now you know how I feel when reading mises.org arguments against the FairTax.
Published: July 30, 2007 9:03 AM
Person, you write:
No, you wouldn't, and that's the problem. If the FT were instead "abolish 16th amendment, amend constitution to allow sales tax at national level, implement tax",
Given how the American system of government works, that's an essentially different proposal. (And, in fact, I'd support this version of the FT all the way until step 1 was completed, whereupon I'd fight against the rest of their plan).
But FT advocates have a multi-stage plan that leaves abolishing the 16th amendment out until the end, and you are downplaying the significance of this.
you could just as easily say, "but later voters could re-implement that amendment, and then we'd have BOTH an income AND a sales tax".
Ah, but I haven't — and wouldn't — for good reasons. The fundamental principle that you are pointing to fails to predict where an argument will go, which should tell us something about its usefulness as far as fundamental principles are concerned.
Once you allow the argument that voters could later undermine the proposal, all bets are off.
You aren't on the same page as your interlocutor, and this statement proves it. The reason you are so frustrated at mises.org is that you can't conceive of the opposing argument outside of your formulation.
Published: July 30, 2007 10:19 AM
You are wasting your time, DC.
Person's errors have been explained to him before.
Mr. Vance's original article criticized the FairTax in two respects --
(1) on economic grounds (i.e., the FairTax itself); and
(2) on political grounds (i.e., the manner in which the FairTax is/was proposed by Boortz et al.).
These are clearly two different things -- (1) the FairTax per se, and (2) the FairTax proposal. They naturally are approached with two different types of arguments, and addressed with two different sets of considerations. In particular, the FairTax per se is subject to economic analysis, whereas the FairTax proposal is more a matter of streetwise experience in the political process.
Some criticisms (including Mr. Vance's) are directed to the FairTax per se, and are therefore focused on economic issues. For example, one economic criticism is that it is revenue-neutral, and therefore promises no real change in the economic harm that taxation inflicts on the taxed.
But other criticisms are directed toward the FairTax proposal, i.e., the political process, and the dangers and pitfalls associated with the way in which the FairTax is being promoted by Boortz et al.
One of these POLITICAL criticisms is that the FairTax proposal is dishonest -- that it uses an inclusive percentage rather than an exclusive percentage as most sales taxes do, and that it therefore does not compare apples to apples.
Another POLITICAL criticism is that the manner in which it is being proposed is a trap -- that the FAIRTAX proposal is politically stupid because, as a matter of the current American political process, it is relatively easy for a government to enact a new tax on top of an old tax, as compared to the political difficulty of enacting a constitutional amendment.
When Mr. Vance stated that a failing of the FairTax is its failure to require a repeal of the 16th Amendment, this was a political argument directed toward the political stupidity of the FairTax proposal, not the economic merits of the FairTax per se.
It is obvious to everyone but Person that he is mistakenly conflating the FairTax per se and the FairTax proposal.
Published: July 30, 2007 2:33 PM
George_Gaskell: First of all, I don't remember Vance ever making the political/economic distinction you made, so your latest defense comes across -- like *all* anti-FT arguments -- as being ad hoc. First you decide the FT is bad, then try to rationalize it.
If this is really want he meant, the arguments still aren't convincing. First, on the economic side, and I've definitely explained this several times (my turn to gripe about arguments of yours I refuted long ago!) even if the total tax revenues are the same, the FT is still much better because it makes the tax code less complicated. Pure theft of money is *not* the only way the tax code hurts us, remember? There is also the expensive planning-around we all have to do to deal with it, and I'd much rather lose $X than lose $X *and* suffer through all the extra work.
So, not only did I address that ridiculous point, the actual FT proponents use that as a justification for switching to it. Which means Vance didn't even respond to the proponent's reasons for implementing it.
On the political side, I'm also disappointed. You are correct that I dismissed them because I assumed Vance was addressing "the" FairTax, not the eventual thing that may make it through commitee (that's what intellectually honest folks would do, anyway...). But even so, you and Vance make assertions about what will be politically easier after any FT is passed -- assertions for which you have the burden and yet have advanced no polisci theory to back it up. Also, as I've noted, once you can criticize a proposal on the grounds of what laws will later be passed, you can "refute" literally *any* proposal -- just assert, without basis, that voters will later implement something worse!
Finally, you say some bad things about the proponents: they're bad bad people for stating the tax this way rather than that. All of that should be totally irrelevant. I care about the policy, not its proponents.
I'm still waiting to hear an honest argument against it. Maybe DC can work harder at his "finding invisible arguments" technique!
Published: July 30, 2007 5:03 PM