Not Yours To Give

Not Yours To Give

You can’t believe everything you read on the internet. (But even the lies and half-truths can provoke some interesting thoughts.) If you want to get the whole story here, take the time to read everything – because I saved the best for last.

On February 18, 2008, I received an e-mail about taxes, which included the following excerpt:

The next time you hear a politician use the word “billion” in a casual manner, think about whether you want the “politicians” spending YOUR tax money. A billion is a difficult number to comprehend, but one advertising agency did a good job of putting that figure into some perspective in one of its releases.

• A billion seconds ago it was 1959.
• A billion minutes ago Jesus was walking the streets of Jerusalem.
• A billion days ago no-one was around.
• A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes, at the rate our government is spending it.

 While this thought is still fresh in our brain, let’s take a look at New Orleans. It’s amazing what you can learn with some simple division…

Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu (D), is presently asking the Congress for $250 BILLION to rebuild New Orleans. Interesting number, what does it mean?

1. Well, if you are one of 484,674 residents of New Orleans (every man, woman, child), you each get $516,528.
2. Or, if you have one of the 188,251 homes in New Orleans , your home gets $1,329,787.
3. Or, if you are a family of four, your family gets $2,066,012.

Washington, D.C .. HELLO!!! … Are all your calculators broken??

Interesting statistics, right? They really help put the concept of “billion” in perspective. And wouldn’t it be nice to be a New Orleans family of four in line for more than $2 million in federal money. Except…

Senator Landrieu isn’t “presently asking Congress” for $250 billion. She asked for it in 2005, right in the midst of the all the “we’ve-got-to-do-something” hysteria about Katrina. After further review, it was fairly obvious the $250 billion figure was overkill. So while the billion info is interesting, the “outrage” is over something that didn’t happen.

However…

Skip the math. There’s another issue here. It’s the assumption that government should be involved in providing “relief” through disbursement of public funds. I know it may sound like a noble undertaking, but is there any rational economic or social justification for having FEMA or any other government disaster relief agency?

This is not meant to be cold-hearted or mean-spirited. Helping those is need is certainly one of the primary virtues of a healthy society. But strong, logical arguments can be made against using government as an instrument of social mercy. In fact, the more likely by-product of government-sponsored social relief – even in emergency and disaster situations – is greed, corruption and waste.

Almost 20 years ago, a mentor gave me a booklet entitled “Not Yours To Give” which convincingly explains why charity should not come from government coffers. The story features an incident in the life of the legendary Davy Crockett during his service as a Congressman. To read the full story – and to fully understand why government should not be in the social relief business, clink on this link “Not Yours To Give”

The evil we know, or the new, unknown evil?

The evil we know, or the new, unknown evil? The IRS is so bad, almost anything has to be better.I’ve just finished reading The FairTax Book by Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder (R-Georgia). As a whole, I’m in agreement with every part of this book.I concur with the historical assessment of the negative consequences of the income tax, from its complexity and cost to its propensity to encourage class envy and political manipulation. I agree that the fairest form of taxation would be a national sales tax on consumption because it would extend to everyone – rich or poor, citizen or illegal alien – and those that spend the most would pay the most tax. The proposal for a monthly pre-bate check is a good marketing strategy that creates positive PR for the government (the bureaucracy necessary to administer the program would be a good relocation program for ex-IRS employees). Ultimately, the transparency and immediacy of the tax cost of each transaction would make everyone more aware of the true cost of government. Since all citizens would benefit from a tax decrease, this awareness should also provide a strong incentives for a long-term reduction in taxes.What’s not to like?The only downer I can see with the FairTax plan is that it will be a government program. And politicians of all stripes in all times have demonstrated an uncanny ability to twist good legislation into a tool for their own self-interests.If there’s a way to “tweak” the FairTax to make it better by carving out “special sales tax exemptions,” you can be sure Congress will attempt to do so. It might be for “green fuels” that protect the environment, or hospice services for the elderly, or any number of other well-intentioned causes. The end result will be another imbalanced tax system that creates inequities, plays favorites, and results in a skewing of economic decisions and rewards.I suppose some might counter my skepticism by proposing the FairTax be incorporated into the Constitution as an amendment, just as the Income tax was in 1913. Under current procedure, changing or nullifying an amendment is much harder than enacting new legislation. My observation is that making it harder to change doesn’t make it impossible. Anything instituted by men can (and will) be undone by them.Still, even given my pessimistic view of our politicians, the FairTax is a good idea. In a free-market society, it provides enough self-interest to move the “invisible hand” of individual consumers toward an approach that would also be a collective better thing for the country.Given my belief that truth cannot be suppressed indefinitely, but inevitably rises to overwhelm lies, I see the FairTax as an idea that will eventually come to fruition. While there remains the possibility that this good idea may also be corrupted, I would be willing to take my chance with a new approach. Even a flawed FairTax would be more desirable than the current system, which often resembles a financial police state instead of a republic.Of course, this discussion completely overlooks the core issue of taxation. Most “civilized” nations may regard taxation as a given – it’s the cost of good government. It would be better if government provided its service in a free-market format by appealing to its customers with added value and competitive pricing. Any governmental costs that are “required,” and enforced by the threat of seizure or imprisonment are claims of sovereignty and restrictions of individual freedom.