NYT celebrates Tax Day
An oped calls for getting rid of the word taxes and replacing it with the word dues. Why? Well, the word taxes seems punitive, whereas dues suggests "obligation and duty."
Now we come to the civics text sermon: "we thrive because of the schools and transit systems and 10,000 other services that exist only because we have joined together."
That's right, were it not for taxes, pardon me, dues, we would all be as dumb as chickens and would just turn around in circles because we would have no system of transit. Oh, and 10,000 other things would be wrong with the world, such as the horrible prospect of no war in Iraq and no bailouts of investment banks. Who can count all the ways we would suffer?
Comments (21)
Would that be anything like the politically correct term "mentally handicapped" replaced "retarded"; which replaced "moron"; which replaced "mongol".
In each case, the term was changed because the term was being used as an insult, therefore it was insulting to use the term in reference to the individual with the condition. However, changing the term acheived nothing. Instead, over a short period of time, the new term became an insult. The insult is not attached to the word, but to the condition the word identifies.
In the same way, changing the term to "dues", to avoid the negative connotations of "taxes", will mearly attach the negative connotations to the new word.
Having said that... you do get some nice aliteration out of calling them "dues"... "Two things in life are garuanteed: death and dues". I think I approve of the term change. It has nice linguistic capabilities.
Published: April 15, 2008 12:39 PM
Sadly, words are far more important than rational arguments. Those wishing to take from others are served most by words that disassociate from their true nature as much as possible. Freedom will be won or lost through connotations...
Published: April 15, 2008 12:51 PM
The worst name change was changing the department of war to the department of defense. It makes it sound like everything it does is justified. At least with the department of war we had leaders honest enough to tell us exactly what that department exists for.
Published: April 15, 2008 1:15 PM
Next thing you know, they will want to replace "dues" with "kisses".
Published: April 15, 2008 1:36 PM
aahhh yes, "time to give the devil his dues."
Let's just call it theft.
Published: April 15, 2008 1:41 PM
Oh, well I guess, since I owe the government the money that it takes from me by force, calling them dues makes sense.
Published: April 15, 2008 1:52 PM
Dues are paid to support membership.
Membership is voluntary. It can be withdrawn. You don't want to be a member any more? Fine. Stop paying your dues.
And vice versa. If you get behind on your dues, they revoke your membership.
I would be ecstatic if I could opt out of the "services" that the State insists that I "buy" with my "dues."
So, sure, let's call them "dues." And when I stop paying them, you can even kick me out of your club.
Published: April 15, 2008 1:53 PM
Actually, it is the banks and Federal Reserve that engage in THEFT (via Fractional Reserve Banking).
The Federal Government engages in ROBBERY.
Published: April 15, 2008 3:16 PM
"“Taxation” is a throwback to the time when kings picked our pockets."
Replace "kings" with Congressmen, and it doesn't seem like much of a throwback to me.
Published: April 16, 2008 12:13 AM
I think protection money is a more appropriate term. What's particularly disturbing is the notion that taxation is seen as people "joining together" to do great things for humanity, as if they were in a Coke commercial. Are people really that clueless?
Published: April 16, 2008 7:29 AM
Are people really that clueless?
YES
Published: April 16, 2008 7:49 AM
Are people really that clueless?
YES
Published: April 16, 2008 7:50 AM
@George Gaskell
"Membership is voluntary. It can be withdrawn. You don't want to be a member any more? Fine. Stop paying your dues."
George, you may want to check out http://americanairlines.com
Flights leaving America daily.
Published: April 16, 2008 8:29 PM
I own land in the US. (well in theory, actually the bank owns half, and I lease from the government, but lets ignore that). I cannot take that land with me when I leave, so leaving means I have to give up property that I own. Not a very rational choice in most (but not all) cases.
Worse, I don't even need to examine the list you provide to discover that every place I can go is already claimed by some form of government that will want some form of taxes. Until I can escape to the asteroid belt (or some such) and have a reasonable hope of life, I can't run from government. I can run from one, but I still end up with a government infringing on my freedom.
Since I can't win, I may as well work with what I've got, and do my best to reform it. I'll most likely fail, but there isn't anything else I can do.
Published: April 16, 2008 10:20 PM
sarcasm on:
I have a great new idea. Because the average person spends about 15% of his income on groceries, let's create the following scheme. Every month you pay 15% of your income to the grocery store. Well, as some people earn more than others, let's make it 20% for the rich and 10% for the poor to be fair and just. For this payment, every week you can pick up a shopping cart full of supplies, pre-selected to form a healthy and balanced diet by reputable experts. If you have are allergic to nuts, just fill out form 190/A/3 and it will be taken into account. Wouldn't it be great if you would be relieved from the hassle of shopping while helping the poor at the same time? If you pay more than whatever your supplies worth, you are giving charity, if you pay less, you are receiving it. Isn't it simple and straightforward?
What? You want to select your own food? You want to be able to choose cheaper foodstuffs when you are saving up for a new car and reward yourself with some scampi and caviar when you got a promotion? You are worried that lacking direct feedback from customers the producers will be less incentived to maintain a good price/value ratio? You see fat possibilities for corruption? You think that the individual tastes and desires of people can be so different that no expert can create a perfect cartful of supplies for everybody? That people can have so different health conditions that are impossible to enumerate and plan for? You prefer to be able to choose whom to give charity to as there are some lifestyles you don't want to incentive, and when you do give charity, you want to give it in plain money because you think it's the recipient who can decide best how to spend it?
Ultimately, do you think this system would benefit the grocery store and the producer at the expense of the customer, and this harm would vastly outdo any possible good it can do to the poorer customers?
My, my. Aren't you just selfish and unpatriotistic?
:-)))
sarcasm off
Published: April 17, 2008 6:43 AM
re: opting out of membership in the U.S.
I always wonder and often would like to ask those most vocal complainers of the federal tax system like George Gaskell, for instance, (even though they may be a little agitated and might even complain too over the "things as usual" way in which the upward tilt in the system was "fixed" by the current Republican administration to reap the highest benefits to the truly wealthiest of individuals in the U.S., (and corporations)), and those citizens who claim that given the opportunity, they would just say no to the U.S. tax system and those "services" imposed on them by our GOVERNMENT: Do you have indoor plumbing and is it hooked up to a sewer system? If instead you refused hookup to the local sewer system, which was built by and maintained by the local government, choosing instead a septic system, I have another question: when you decide to take your family for a leisurely Sunday afternoon drive, does it start when you back the family SUV from the garage and onto your own private road system?
If anything, the wealthiest Americans consume more of the services (perhaps not proportionally) provided by the government by choice than do the lowest income earners, those Americans living in poverty, and the working blue and white-collar middle class, by necessity. Just think about it.
Published: April 17, 2008 3:58 PM
Flights leaving America daily.
Thank you for your offer, Nick, but I am talking about doing both of these things:
a. withdrawing from this mysterious "club" to which I am supposed to pay "dues"; AND
b. staying right the f*ck here.
Since you mention that you would like me to leave this arbitrary territory called "America" that you have staked out, I assume that you would also feel justified in attacking attacking me because I refuse to leave while also refusing to pay these "dues."
However, "voluntary" and "free" mean being free to choose to do something or not do something, and not being threatened or attacked one chooses option A instead of B.
Threatening someone with violence if they don't pay is not a form of membership. Since we are not talking about a situation involving membership, it follows that the payments we make to this organization are not "dues."
QED
Published: April 18, 2008 9:23 AM
I always wonder and often would like to ask those most vocal complainers of the federal tax system like George Gaskell, for instance, ... and those citizens who claim that given the opportunity, they would just say no to the U.S. tax system and those "services" imposed on them by our GOVERNMENT: Do you have indoor plumbing and is it hooked up to a sewer system? If instead you refused hookup to the local sewer system, which was built by and maintained by the local government, choosing instead a septic system, I have another question: when you decide to take your family for a leisurely Sunday afternoon drive, does it start when you back the family SUV from the garage and onto your own private road system?
Thank you for your questions, and I will do my best to answer them.
First, these questions are not new. They have been asked millions of times, and answered millions of times.
Yes, I have plumbing and use government-supplied water, and I use the roads.
However, part of the government's insistence on supplying these "services" is that they also assert a monopoly. No one is ALLOWED to start a business that offers competing water, electricity or cable services.
As a result, those of us who would prefer that these industries be provided in a free market are out of luck. All of the businesses that would love to provide me with private water, electricity and cable, etc. DO NOT EXIST, and are not allowed to exist. This limits consumer choice to pretty much zero.
Plus, even when an government-run industry is not 100% protected by a government-sponsored monopoly, they still manage to crowd out private alternatives.
Take the Post Office for example. It has a monopoly on letter delivery, but not on packages. The package-delivery industry is not nearly as competitive as it could be because the Post Office doesn't have to run a profit to survive. It lives on federal subsidies. It pays nothing for its land, nothing for its legal services, nothing for security. These services are all paid for by other departments in the US government.
And yet, the Post Office STILL runs its package-delivery business at a loss. That loss is subsidized by taxpayers.
In a free market, the Post Office would be bankrupt, and delivery services other than FedEx, UPS and DHL would have the opportunity to exist.
You asked about roads. The government (at all levels) has been controlling the placement, construction and maintenance of roads for 150+ years. Governments control the location, size and type of every building that may be built on the land between the roads (which they lay out), and dictate the types of businesses that may be operated on that land.
In effect, government controls the physical space in which we live -- the size of our houses, their location, spacing, as well as the size, type and location of every business.
If cars are a problem for any reason, or people are required to use a car to do basic things like eat or work, then the government is responsible for that. Governments have made us car-dependent.
If supplying gasoline to all those cars is a secondary problem, then the government is responsible for that, too.
If international conflicts arising over the supplying of gasoline to all those cars is a tertiary problem, then the government is responsible for that, too.
Published: April 18, 2008 9:51 AM
If anything, the wealthiest Americans consume more of the services (perhaps not proportionally) provided by the government by choice than do the lowest income earners, those Americans living in poverty, and the working blue and white-collar middle class, by necessity. Just think about it.
Problem with this assertion is that, in order to conclude a moral hazard, the "wealthiest Americans" would have to have a choice when it comes to government-provided services. Last I looked, only the government can tell what we can use as money; only the government can build roads and only the government can deliver the mail, because the government prohibits anybody else from doing so. So, your assertion is disingenuous to say the least.
Published: April 18, 2008 7:12 PM
(gdi I can't help myself 8( sorry, but I'll do my best to use respectful language). This perhaps is the crux of the anarcho-Libertarian concept (another one for me is notion of 'multiple justice providers')? This is one issue that I cannot get my head around. The U.S. government owns the U.S. land. But then other governments own other land. Therefore? Competition? They want to use force? How is it not a type of retaliation type of force? This is a similar argument to what happens to someone who is trapped in a privately-own world - the moment you move you infringe on someone's property in any way they probably expect payment. How is anyone expected to get anywhere with private roads unless you pay the owners? If the owner says there's an easement right, what is it? That the sidewalk is part of the private road and you are free to use that? Which to say, you don't have to pay but you can't expect to do much with it. You're free to walk for free but tough luck if you wanted to drive your car with your belongings out of town.
I mean Libertarians get upset at the 'love or leave it' argument but isn't that what will run a totally private world? I'm sure there are a handful of ways you can reside in the U.S. and not pay taxes. Two ways I can think of are: don't earn much that you stay below the minimum threshold (at least for the income tax) or apply for welfare services whereby you're tax-paying/-receiving neutral.
But, ultimately, if private operators were to own land people would agree they'd have a monopoly over that land and have the right to 'retaliatory force'. If they're even larger and get the ability to acquire tenants they get to make their own rules and regulation and even issue their own money. The only difference seems to be whether or not the owner rightfully acquired their land. Who knows maybe a example in practice would be the Italian City States in Leonardo da Vinci's time?
Published: April 19, 2008 1:34 AM
"The maintenance of a government apparatus of courts, police officers, prisons, and of armed forces requires considerable expenditure. To levy taxes for these purposes is fully compatible with the freedom the individual enjoys in a free market economy. To assert this does not, of course, amount to a justification of the confiscatory and discriminatory taxation methods practiced today by the self-styled progressive governments."
--Ludwig von Mises
Published: May 30, 2008 3:53 AM