"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day, but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of (politicians), too plainly prove a deliberate and systematic plan of reducing us all to slavery." -Thomas Jefferson
The problem with the news today is they no longer provide an objective look at what happened. Instead, they provide a biased point of view and then tell you what to think and how to feel about it.
Instead, I'll cover two competing views on Republican Representative Justin Amash's YES vote on the American Health Care Act (AHCA) and allow you to make up your own mind. Haven't read it yet? I'll post it at the bottom of the article in an effort to declutter. We'll first look at his decision and validate it against our Principle of "Constitutionalism". This allows us to determine whether the new AHCA bill is even valid, legal or constitutional. The second way to critique Representative Amash's decision and look at his reasoning. We can then determine if the new AHCA incrementally takes us 'Closer to Liberty' or 'Closer to Tyranny'. Is AHCA even Constitutional?
There is no gray area on this question. The AHCA Bill is either constitutional or it's not. If it's not, Rep Amash took an oath to uphold the constitution and failed by voting YES. A NO vote on an unconstitutional bill is a constitutional vote. A YES vote for an unconstitutional bill is an unconstitutional vote.
The argument from those who uphold this principle of Constitutionality will claim that we even if AHCA is incrementally better than ObamaCare, his vote on a law that violates the Constitution should be an automatic NO. They would also claim that just because this unconstitutional law is slightly better than the previous unconstitutional law, Libertarians have never been about voting for the lesser of two evils, Quite the opposite. So is AHCA unconstitutional? Again, I won't tell you what to think but reading more on it should color your favorability (or not) or Rep Amash's vote. No one has ever been able to clearly articulate to me why the Robert's precedent made ObamaCare constitutional so I'm not the guy to give legal advice. Might I suggest a couple great articles: Is Ryancare’s ‘Lapsed Coverage’ Surcharge Unconstitutional Under Roberts’s Obamacare Precedent? Why I voted NO on the American Health Care Act - Representative Andy Biggs
FREE BITCOIN! When you buy $100 Bitcoin through this link, you'll earn $10 of FREE Bitcoin! (IMMEDIATE 10% ROI!)
Does AHCA Take us Closer to Liberty or Closer to Tyranny?
Those who support Rep Amash's YES vote because "AHCA is incrementally better than ObamaCare" will typically claim that they are 'realists' in the room. They understand that we won't wake up tomorrow living in a libertarian society with a perfectly Free Market Health Care system. They argue that libertarians have to do what we can, when we can, to reduce the size of government, even if incrementally.
Rep Amash knows that a NO vote doesn't repeal ObamaCare, it's the law of the land. Realistically, he notes, a YES vote can at least get us started in a new direction, one towards Liberty. This might be true even though I believe AHCA to be a monstrosity of legal code atop another monstrosity of legal code. The problem is that for for the past seven years, Republicans have run for Congress on a commitment to repeal Obamacare. And now, even though they claim this is it, they are only amending ObamaCare, retooling the subsidies, taking out the individual mandate, and ensuring the government is the one who maintains power of the health care market. The AHCA is bad politics for the Republicans and bad policy for Amash's name to be tied to. Why risk putting your name on a slightly better turd sandwich than the one you inherited? The one they all got elected on promising to repeal? The one they passed very clear Repeal Legislation on more than 50 times when they knew President Obama would just veto? It seems to me that allowing the ill-effects of government intervention into the health care market only empowers those calling for Single Payer, a death knell for individual liberty and one that ensures increased scope of government and decreased quality of product. My principles of Limited Government and Free Markets refuses to support AHCA. Part of me cheers knowing that it's not likely to pass the Senate in it's current form. Conclusion
This is a tough one. I'd love to hear your thoughts below on whether your support the AHCA because 'at least it's a slightly better turd sandwich' or if you'd prefer a NO vote on it because 'Repeal ObamaCare or NOTHING'.
Would you be happy living with ObamaCare for another few years in an attempt to try to get full repeal? I'm not optimistic that any power given to the government is one that you'll see them give back without a long fight and without multiple electoral consequences for politicians. Rep Justin Amash's Response
This is not the bill we promised the American people. For the past seven years, Republicans have run for Congress on a commitment to repeal Obamacare. But it is increasingly clear that a bill to repeal Obamacare will not come to the floor in this Congress or in the foreseeable future. Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
0 Comments
Both big-ticket news items out of the Trump administration today remain largely speculative in many ways, so it's too early to draw firm conclusions about them. That said, based on what I heard today, I want to offer a few points for consideration.
TAX CUTS: It is no secret that our corporate tax code is grossly uncompetitive. It is among the most expensive on the entire planet and is structured such that it discourages investing, hiring, and other key facets of a healthy economy. It discourages entrepreneurialism, encourages companies to move their headquarters to other countries, and creates an incentive for American corporations to leave large amounts of their cash overseas--cash that could be brought home and put to work in our own economy. This is what happens when you have a very archaic and outdated corporate tax system. When I say "outdated," I mean it literally: the U.S. is one of the last remaining developed countries with a world-wide tax system (meaning that money corporations earn around the world, not just the income they derive from the U.S., can be taxed here). Most of our peers got rid of world-wide tax systems decades ago. I agree with Trump: 15% is a reasonable corporate income tax rate. (There are strong arguments to be made for its elimination entirely, but that's for a post another day.) This is the hallmark of his plan, and I like it. I need to point out two grave concerns I have though. (1) It isn't clear that his plan will dramatically simplify the corporate tax code. Rates do need to come down, but that's far from the only problem. The code's complexity creates an additional tax in and of itself because complying with it is such an expensive legal and accounting endeavor. Any major reform must include simplifying and streamlining the tax code. (2) Trump said that he doesn't care about revenue, and this plan seems to bear that out. This is a plan that, when combined with Trump's high levels of proposed spending, would add mightily to our national debt. Any tax and spending plans Republicans pass through Congress MUST seek to reign in our exploding national debt. You cannot increase spending while cutting tax rates and narrowing the tax base. The base should be broadened, the rates lowered, and the spending brought to heel. There is a myth floating around the White House that cutting the corporate tax rate to 15% will lead to enough economic growth to offset tax revenue losses at current rates. That is not true. Cutting the corporate tax rate will lead to higher growth, but it will not lead to enough growth to stem the rising tide of national debt. (Corporate tax rates are but one of many headwinds our economy faces.) Any tax plan must be, at a minimum, revenue neutral and passed in conjunction with LOWER spending plans. Otherwise, you're essentially mortgaging your future for a little short-term relief. Additional government debt can quickly crowd out additional private investment, after all. NAFTA: Rumors are circulating that Trump may be planning to sign an executive order expressing our intent to leave NAFTA. This would be an error of historic proportions. It is a good idea to occasionally revisit old agreements. Our economy and the world in general are very different places than they were when NAFTA was negotiated. We should never consider economic frameworks to be entirely permanent. Thus, re-opening negotiations could be a very good idea. Re-negotiating and leaving are very, very different outcomes though. If we left NAFTA, three realities are absolutely certain to set in: (1) a small number of jobs would come back to the U.S.--far too few for most people even to know someone who held one of those new jobs; (2) far, far more jobs would simply be automated--no one would hold them; and (3) the prices that ALL Americans pay for many goods and some services would increase sharply. It wouldn't end there though. This would be catastrophic for Mexico and Canada and near-catastrophic for the U.S. Stock markets would be hammered. GDP growth would slow--possibly even reverse (which means lower standards of living for many people). Anyone who has a 401(k), an IRA, or simply invests a little in the stock market to plan for retirement would find his retirement calculus suddenly looking less rosy. The world is a different place today. Taking another look at NAFTA's terms is a good idea. As I said though, the world is a different place today, and whereas whether to join NAFTA was a good question in the 90's, two decades later, whether to leave it shouldn't even be up for discussion. Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
.
Great article from a list I subscribe to over at Norada. Biggest failure I see in my clients is that they have no desire to better themselves or build Human Capital and expand their skillset. READ! Bottom line is that in 5-10 years, you will be the same person you are today with the exception of the books you read and the new people you meet. Try to be better 5-10 years from now. Keep growing. Read. Research shows that 88% of wealthy people devote at least 30 minutes a day to reading. If it works for them, it could work for you. Below, we’ve rounded up 12 of our favorite books, from personal finance classics to new releases. Here’s to a prosperous year! 1. “Think and Grow Rich” by Napoleon Hill Journalist Napoleon Hill researched more than 500 self-made millionaires, including Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford, and Charles M. Schwab, before releasing this 1937 best-seller. Hill’s timeless personal fiance classic will help you understand that getting rich is more about mentality above anything else. In fact, he barely mentions the words “money,” “wealth,” or “finances.” Rather, he explains the psychological barriers that hold many people back from building fortunes — and teaches you how to start thinking your way to success. 2. “Business Adventures” by John Brooks Rich people tend to believe starting a business is the fastest way to make money. This read, endorsed by self-made billionaires Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, will teach you just how to do that … but not the way a conventional business book does. “Unlike a lot of today’s business writers, Brooks didn’t boil his work down into pat how-to lessons or simplistic explanations for success (How many times have you read that some company is taking off because they give their employees free lunch?)” Gates explains. “You won’t find any listicles in his work. Brooks wrote long articles that frame an issue, explore it in depth, introduce a few compelling characters, and show how things went for them.” Don’t let the 1969 publication date throw you off. While a lot has changed in the business world since the 1960’s, the fundamentals of building a strong business have not, Gates writes, adding, “Brooks’s deeper insights about business are just as relevant today as they were back then.” 3. “The Little Book of Common Sense Investing” by John C. Bogle One of the most effective ways to build wealth is to invest. At least, if you do it correctly. Bogle, founder of the Vanguard Group and creator of the world’s first index fund, details the simplest and most efficient investment strategy: Investing in low-cost index funds. Legendary investor Warren Buffett also says that every investor, large and small, should pick up a copy. 4. “The Essays of Warren Buffett” by Warren Buffett If a blurb by Buffett doesn’t entice you, get directly inside the billionaire’s head with this collection of letters and notes written by the “Oracle of Omaha.” The 700+ page book offers a clearer picture of Buffett’s philosophies on business, investing, and life. 5. “Tools of Titans” by Tim Ferriss What does it take to be a billionaire? Best-selling author Tim Ferriss’ latest book explores the daily routines and habits of celebrities, professional athletes, hedge fund managers and others. Ferriss went straight to the sources and interviewed more than 200 world-class performers. For a sneak peak, check out one, peculiar habit that the wealthiest, most successful people share. 6. “The Richest Man in Babylon” by George S. Clason Nearly a century ago, Clason revealed the “secret” to getting rich in his 1926 personal finance classic. It turns out that the “secret” isn’t much of one. All it takes to get rich is mastering a few simple concepts, such as paying yourself first and living within your means, which Clason preaches via a collection of entertaining parables. 7. “Rich Dad Poor Dad” by Robert Kiyosaki Kiyosaki shatters the myth that you need to earn a lot of money to get rich in this best-seller. By telling the story of two dads — his own, and the father of his best friend — he explains how to build wealth even with a small salary. Additionally, Kiyosaki challenges the popular belief that your house is an asset, details the differences between how rich people and average people choose to get paid, and emphasizes the critical difference between an asset and a liability. 8. “The Automatic Millionaire” by David Bach Self-made millionaire and financial advisor David Bach exposes a handful of money misconceptions in his easy-to-read best-seller. You don’t need a budget, you don’t need to make a lot of money, and you don’t even need willpower to accumulate a fortune, he writes. Research shows that 88% of wealthy people devote at least 30 minutes a day to reading. If it works for them, it could work for you. Below, we’ve rounded up 12 of our favorite books, from personal finance classic to new releases, to work your way through over the next 12 months. Here’s to a prosperous 2017! 9. “How Rich People Think” by Steve Siebold When Steve Siebold started interviewing hundreds of millionaires and billionaires, he was “completely broke and searching for answers about success I wasn’t finding in the classroom,” he writes. “What I discovered was, to get rich, I had to learn to think like a rich person. … Once I changed my thinking, the money started to flow.” Anyone has the opportunity to build wealth, he stresses in “How Rich People Think,” and it all starts with changing your mindset. For a sneak peak, check out the number one way rich people view the world differently than the average person. 10. “Be Obsessed or Be Average” by Grant Cardone As Siebold says, to get rich, you have to learn from those who have already done it. Self-made millionaire Grant Cardone knows a thing or two about managing money: The entrepreneur has built five companies and a multi-million dollar fortune. In the best-selling author’s latest book, he emphasizes that if you want real success, you have to be hungry, hyper-focused, even obsessed. While Cardone offers some contrarian advice — he discourages investing in a 401(k) plan and buying a home — his wealth-building strategies helped him go from broke at 25 to earning his first million by age 30. 11. “The Power of Broke” by Daymond John “Shark Tank” investor and entrepreneur Daymond John turned $40 worth of fabric into a $6 billion brand, FUBU. Along the way, he’s been rejected a lot and has lost a lot. Being broke, however, offers at least one major advantage: It sparks creativity and out-of-the-box solutions, he explains in “The Power of Broke.” Don’t write off your chances of wealth and success if your bank account is low, he suggests. Use it to your advantage. 12. “You Can Negotiate Anything” by Herb Cohen If you want to earn more in 2017, a simple yet often overlooked strategy is to negotiate your salary. If you’re nervous about approaching your boss to ask for a raise, try Cohen’s best-seller. It will help you get what you want, and what you deserve. For more great suggestions follow me on Twitter at Jason Stapleton Suggests and Tom Woods Suggests. You can also get two FREE Audiobooks by signing up with Audible on the link below: Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
I’m tempted to say that statism is sort of like a cult. Proponents of socialism and other big-government ideologies have a dogmatic zeal that blinds them to reality. For instance, no nation has ever become rich with big government. But that doesn’t stop leftists from advocating in favor of higher taxes and more coercive redistribution. They are equally capable of rationalizing that economic misery in places such as Greece and Venezuela has nothing to do with bad policy, and you can even find a few zealots willing to defend basket cases such as Cuba and North Korea. So long as they don’t burn me at the stake for my heretical views, I guess I won’t get too agitated by their bizarre fetish for statism. But I will periodically mock them. And that’s the purpose of today’s column. We’ll start with this nice comparison between a capitalist grocery store and a socialist grocery store. I have no idea, by the way, if the lower image actually is a supermarket in a socialist country, but let’s not forget that a real-world version of this comparison is one of the reasons there’s no longer an Evil Empire. But the bad news about socialism is not limited to economic deprivation for the masses. The system also leads in many cases to totalitarianism (see this article by Marian Tupy, for example). Venezuela is a particularly poignant example. Once the richest nation in Latin America, it now is an economic laggard and also is a cesspool of oppression. Which makes this set of images from Reddit‘s libertarian page both funny and sad. As you might expect, Milton Friedman had some very pointed observations on this topic. The really good part starts shortly before 2:00. He explains very clearly that socialism is based on force and coercion. I’ve saved the best for last. The PotL sent me this collection of risky temptations and it perfectly captures the attitude of many statists. No matter how many times socialism has failed, they never learn the appropriate lesson. It just hasn’t been tried by the right people, they tell us. Or been imposed in the right circumstances. So they want us to give it one more try, just like a person with no willpower will eat one more bite of chocolate. Which is the same message you find here, here, and here. Incidentally, this analysis not only applies to socialism, as technically defined, but it also applies to redistributionism. Which is definitely more benign, but nonetheless produces bad results. The bottom line is that statism is a recipe for stagnation and free markets are a route to prosperity. Republished from International Liberty. Daniel J. MitchellDaniel J. Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute who specializes in fiscal policy, particularly tax reform, international tax competition, and the economic burden of government spending. He also serves on the editorial board of the Cayman Financial Review. This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article. Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon used his annual letter to shareholders to provide his outlook on a post-Brexit world, internal changes the company must adjust to, and give his thoughts on what is wrong in an otherwise amazing United States.
Bloomberg writes: Dimon, leader of world’s most valuable bank and a counselor to the new president, used his 45-page annual letter to shareholders on Tuesday to list ways America is stronger than ever -- before jumping into a much longer list of self-inflicted problems that he said was “upsetting” to write.
While I disagree with the notion that we MUST become more internationally collectivist, Dimon points out a lot of agreeable problems. Many of these are common sense to the rest of us, but are mostly ignored by the political class:
- Skyrocketing corporate taxes drive human capital and jobs overseas -Regulation is excessive in almost every industry -United States has wasted trillions in useless wars and requires a foreign policy overhaul -Failed immigration policy which fails to retain numerous much-needed advance degree holders -A Justice system that criminalizes American citizens with felonies, many times for only minor infractions -A housing market weighted down by bureaucratic layers and rules Finally, Dimon points out something that I'm very passionate about. Educating the populace. The Democratic, left-leaning populace, left to its own devices in 2016 overwhelmingly wanted a socialist to be their candidate at the same time that Venezuela burned. Dimon points out that people are losing their confidence in a system that has brought so many out of poverty. The free market is responsible for the most wealth created than any other system yet known to man. The U.S. is paying the price for bad decisions, and “something has gone awry in the public’s understanding of business and free enterprise,” -Jamie Dimon
The letter in it's entirety is embedded below.
Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
Sanctuary Campuses: Should Colleges that don't comply with Immigration Law NOT get Federal Funding?12/21/2016 No Funding for Sanctuary Campuses Act
This bill would prohibit federal funding for student loans and grants to colleges and universities that adopt “sanctuary campus” policies and refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Specifically, funding from Title IV of the Higher Education Act would be cut off, which funds the Direct Loan, Federal Perkins Loan, and Pell Grant programs among others.
In response to President-elect Donald Trump’s pledge to deny federal law enforcement funding to sanctuary cities that don’t comply with federal immigration law, numerous colleges and universities across the country have declared themselves sanctuaries as well. At least 28 higher education institutions have declared themselves to be sanctuary campuses so far. A “sanctuary campus” would be defined as any college or university that:
An institution of higher education wouldn’t be considered a sanctuary campus solely based on having a policy that prohibits its staff from reporting an unauthorized immigrant who comes forward as a crime victim or witness. If this bill is enacted, it wouldn’t take effect for 90 days, so colleges and universities would have time to potentially change their campus policies to comply with this legislation.
"Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day."
Analysis
It is theft to allow anyone in the world access to US taxpayer money. When an illegal immigrant comes into the U.S. and gets taxpayer funds in order to go to college, the taxpayer suffers unjustly.
Government is responsible in the protection of life, liberty, and property. Taxpayer money is property. The "Argument Opposed" is written with an emotional appeal fallacy. Because, of course, voting yay would be "spiteful". It also claims that it would affect colleges just 'because the school doesn’t want to help deport unauthorized immigrants'. In fact, nowhere does it say the college will assist in deporting illegal immigrants. This bill intends to negatively incentivized those colleges that are going out of there way to get funding from the IS taxpayer for their illegal immigrant students. Why would a University want to be a sanctuary college? Because it expands their market (student population). And with an expanded market comes greater profits and a better bottom line. And where does this taxpayer money go? Why, it's spent THERE AT THE UNIVERSITY thus lining their own pockets. And they say greed is a unique trait of the Right... Other comments:
Follow libertyLOL on Countable.us to see more of our Policy Analysis and Liberty Opinion Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
Now that Donald Trump has been elected, one of my main goals will be to convince him and his team that it would be wrong to leave government spending on autopilot (and it would be even worse to spend more money and increase the burden of government!). Since Trump semi-endorsed the Penny Plan, I don’t think this is a hopeless quest. But it will be an uphill battle since populists have a “public choice” incentive to appease interest groups. But we have a very powerful weapon in this battle. It’s called evidence. And now there’s even more data on our side. The Institute for Economic Affairs in London has just published an excellent new book on fiscal policy. Edited by Philip Booth, Taxation, Government Spending, & Economic Growth is must reading for those who want to understand the deleterious impact of the modern welfare state. The IEA’s Director General, Mark Littlewood, explains the goal in the book’s foreword.
The most depressing part of the book is contained in Chapter 3. As you can see from Table 7, the burden of government used to be rather modest in western nations. Indeed, I’ve made the point that it was during the era of small government that the western world became rich. But now look at the numbers. Pay special attention to the period between 1960 and 1980, which is when the welfare state exploded in many of the countries (aided and abetted by the value-added tax). But let’s not cry about unfortunate historical developments. It will be more productive if we measure the harm so we can educate policy makers about the need for spending restraint. And the book is filled with lots of useful information in that quest. In Chapter 4, David Smith explains the interaction between fiscal policy and economic performance, noting that excessive government not only reduces the level of economic output, but also the future growth rate.
He provides a micro-economic explanation for why various government activities hinder growth (I offer eight reasons in this video, by the way).
In other words, he’s saying that not only is government too big. He’s also pointing out that much of the spending is seemingly designed to impose economic damage by discouraging the productive use and allocation of labor and capital. I also like that he explains that the real problem is spending, not just red ink (a point I often make, but not always successfully, when talking to politicians).
He then reviews some of the research on the “Rahn Curve.”
Incidentally, I like and dislike what he wrote in this section. I like it because the obvious conclusion is that the burden of government is excessive in both the United States (37.9 percent of GDP according to OECD fiscal data) and the United Kingdom (43.3 percent of GDP). And we can use this data to argue for much-needed spending restraint. But I don’t like the above passage because I think the growth-maximizing size of government is well below 20 percent of GDP. As I’ve previously explained, academic researchers are constrained by the lack of data for small-government economies. So when they crunch numbers (relying in all cases on post-WWII data, and in most cases on much more recent figures), they basically find that Hong Kong and Singapore grow the fastest and they think that implies the public sector should consume 20 percent of economic output. But that implies, if you recall the data in Table 7 from above, that nations would have enjoyed more growth in 1870 if they doubled the burden of government spending. I think that’s nonsensical. What’s really happening is that researchers are simply measuring the downward-sloping portion of the Rahn Curve. But just because Hong Kong and Singapore are the first two jurisdictions that can be plotted, that doesn’t mean the Rahn Curve peaks at that point. But I realize I’m nit-picking, so let’s go back to the book. In the following chapter, Professor Patrick Miniford shares some additional research on the link between government spending and economic performance. I especially like how he shares a very useful table looking at some scholarly findings on the relationship between the overall fiscal burden and national prosperity. He also shares the conclusions from additional research.
And he discusses some new statistical findings, along with the potential implications for the United Kingdom.
I’m sure the data and conclusions also apply to the United States. Which brings me back to where I started. I fretted yesterday that Trump’s election will be a challenge to advocates of economic liberty. Indeed, he explicitly called for more infrastructure spending and implicitly called for more VA spending in his acceptance speech. Combined with his apparent rejection of entitlement reform, this doesn’t instill much confidence. But that’s all the more reason to disseminate this new research on the bad consequences of letting America become more like France. Republished from Dan Mitchell's blog. Daniel J. MitchellDaniel J. Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute who specializes in fiscal policy, particularly tax reform, international tax competition, and the economic burden of government spending. He also serves on the editorial board of the Cayman Financial Review. This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article. Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
Since the first Presidential Debate, there has been a lot of hue and cry because Donald Trump had the temerity to declare that he paid no income taxes. More specifically Hillary Clinton said, about his refusal to make his income tax statements public:
Trump retorted, "That makes me smart," more or less declaring he didn't pay any income taxes and he's proud of it. And so he should be. To be sure, he is vulnerable to the charge of hypocrisy, not paying tax, on one hand, and advocating what could turn out to be the largest infrastructure project in American history on the other, in addition to kvetching about crumbling infrastructure and declining military spending. Yet, on the matter of taxes alone, he is right. Judge Learned Hand stated that "anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands." (Gregory v. Helvering 69 F.2d 809 - 1935) Ironically, that judgment went against the taxpayer, something not often noted by those who quote it. The issue is known as the doctrine of substance over form. In that particular case, a businesswoman named Evelyn Gregory had swapped assets between two corporations, then dissolved one of them which distributed the assets to her as owner. She then claimed a lower tax liability as a result. In an analysis of Hand's contribution to tax law, Yale law professor Marvin Chirelstein notes that the courts "follow no single and consistent set of rules in deciding when to accept and when to disregard the taxpayer's choice of form" and that when the courts reject the citizen's chosen form of organization, they "commonly assert as a matter of principle that the incidence of taxation depends upon the substance of a transaction and that mere form is not controlling." But if the form is accepted, Hand's maxim reigns - "There is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible." That is why many businesses hire tax attorneys to advise them of the best options available to them.This results in a contradictory position. "In practice the first principle means simply that the range of effective choice is limited in the situation under review, or indeed that the only route to the taxpayer's destination is the one that bears the highest tax. By contrast the second principle, when applicable, confirms that the availability of alternative legal procedures also gives the taxpayer a right of election with respect to the tax consequences." What this means is that tax law is inconclusive and vague, but there's no harm in trying to keep taxes low. That is why many businesses hire tax attorneys to advise them of the best options available to them. Everyone Should Do It This is not just a privilege of the rich, though they might have more options available and the means to hire skilled tax lawyers. Every citizen has options available so as to limit or lower her taxes. These include such things as the various Individual Retirement Plans (IRAs) which confer certain tax advantages. Additionally, interest paid on a loan for business purposes is tax deductible. Many people run small businesses from their homes in order to deduct some of their living expenses. A recent article in the New York Times looking at the Trump tax imbroglio notes that tax write-offs for start-up business ventures are generous. "There was a point when even ruinous projects like an unfinished, unleased office tower could end up producing a profit for some investors, thanks to ample tax write-offs." Such loopholes, the article notes, were largely closed off for outside investors when the Reagan administration overhauled the tax act in 1986. "But active real estate investors and developers were allowed to keep that tax break." The article notes that when Trump had to disclose his tax filings to get a casino license back in the 80s, there were two years, 1978 and 1979, in which Trump paid no income taxes at all. "By taking advantage of deductions available to real estate developers and claiming losses from partnerships, Mr. Trump reported a “negative income” of $406,379 in 1978 and $3.4 million in 1979 — thus avoiding any tax liability for those two years, a time when he claimed to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars." The article notes further that Trump paid no income taxes in 1984, 1991 and 1993. The Donald was losing money on his Atlantic City casinos in those latter years which would have put him under water. But that is what entrepreneurship is all about. You take risks, including the risk of loss. And during the losing years, you pay no taxes. That is not, despite the agitations of the professional teeth gnashers, a bad thing. Nor is it shady or underhanded or in any way blameworthy. The Widespread Demand to Pay as Little as Possible We recently visited friends who live in a gated community on Vancouver Island. It's a fairly wealthy strata community and our host told us about one neighbor who boasts that he pays no income tax. I was amazed as I pay some tax even on my pension income. I wondered how he did it. But thinking about it, I can think of many ways in which a retired person with substantial assets can have a decent income and pay no income tax at all. These are options open to all my fellow Canadians who have accumulated some wealth during their working lives. If they have a beef, it should be with the governments making those tax laws, not with people and businesses making reasonable business decisions.These include Tax Free Savings Accounts (similar to Roth IRAs in the United States), reverse mortgages, remortgaging properties and so on. There is no capital gains tax in Canada on your principal residence. So if you bought a house in Vancouver for under $50,000 forty years ago which is worth over a million today, you can sell it and pocket that million bucks tax free. It's all above board and legal. Corporations often use differences in jurisdictional tax laws to avoid taxes by having subsidiaries in other countries. Ireland, for example, has some of the lowest corporate tax rates in the world and some companies use Irish subsidiaries to avoid paying American taxes. The professional crying in their soupers, of course, think this is a dastardly thing. But again, these companies are making use of existing legislation to minimize their tax liabilities. What's wrong with that? If they have a beef, it should be with the governments making those tax laws, not with people and businesses making reasonable business decisions. Indeed, Ireland gives generous tax benefits to creative artists. You can earn up to fifty thousand euros tax free if you live there if you are a cultural worker – a writer, a composer or a sculptor. No one seems to object to that but they cry a river when corporations use advantageous tax laws in other jurisdictions. Loopholes Liberate Tax avoidance is as American as apple pie.Like Clinton in the debate, the professional whinging class like to spout off all the things that the taxes would buy if only Trump or businesses or you and me were sacrificially minded enough. Clinton said, "So if he's paid zero, that means zero for troops, zero for vets, zero for schools or health." A site denouncing the Irish tax haven says America's three largest tech giants have avoided $8 billion over the years, money that could have paid for health insurance for 4 million kids, salaries for 200,000 teachers or pay for the California highway patrol for four years. A recent meme from Occupy Democrats says not paying taxes makes Trump, not smart, but "a selfish unpatriotic crook". Even the Clintons use trusts and charities that they control to minimize taxes. And what's wrong with that? Nothing. Remember that America was founded to a large extent on a tax revolt - the Boston tea party. Tax avoidance is as American as apple pie. The holier than thou types should consider again Judge Hand's words. "There is (no) patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands." Amen to that!
Marco den OudenMarco den Ouden writes at The Jolly Libertarian. This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article. More from LibertyLOL:
12NOV EDIT: David Stockman's book is COMPLETE!
David Stockman was working on a new book and was releasing snippets in his blog over at http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/ It delves into the good and bad of the Trump campaign and platform and outlines a more consistent way forward based on free markets, fiscal rectitude, sound money, constitutional liberty, non-intervention abroad, minimalist government at home and decentralized political rule. Here's a great list of actual deals that the next President, whoever it is, should immediately negotiate: Ten Great Deals For The Donald If Donald Trump is elected, eschews a law and order crusade and does not capitulate to the destructive policies of the Wall Street/Washington/bicoastal establishment, there is a way forward. The political outlaw who considers himself to be the world’s greatest deal-maker would need to do just that. To wit, a President Trump determined to rid the nation of its mutant regime of Bubble Finance at home and failed interventionism abroad would need to make Ten Great Deals. A Peace Deal with Putin for dismantlement of NATO, cooperation in the middle east, strangulation of ISIS by the Shiite Crescent and a comprehensive worldwide agreement to end the arms trade and pave the way for general disarmament. A Jobs Deal based on slashing taxes on business and workers and replacing them with taxes on consumption and imports. A Sound Money Deal to repeal Humphrey-Hawkins, end the Fed’s war on savers and cash, abolish the FOMC and limit the Fed’s remit to passively providing liquidity at a penalty spread over market interest rates based on sound commercial collateral. A Glass-Steagall Deal to break up the giant financial conglomerates, limit the Fed’s liquidity window to “narrow banks” which only take deposits and make loans and deny deposit insurance to any banking institution involved in Wall Street trading, derivatives and other forms of financial gambling. A Federalist Deal to turn back most of Washington’s domestic grant and welfare programs to the states and localities in return for a mega-block grant with a 30-year phase-out. A Regulatory Deal based on an absolute 4-year freeze on every single pending regulation, and then subjecting every existing statute to strict cost-benefit rules thereafter. A Liberty Deal to get Washington out of the war on drugs, criminal law enforcement and regulation of private conduct and morality. A Health Care Deal based on the repeal of Obamacare and tax preferences for employer insurance plans and their replacement with wide-open provider competition, consumer choice and individual health tax credits. A Fiscal Deal to slash post-disarmament defense spending, devolve education and other domestic programs to local government and to clawback unearned social security/medicare entitlements benefits from the affluent elderly. And a Governance Deal to amend the constitution to rescind Citizens United, impose term limits and establish public finance of all Federal elections. More from LibertyLOL:
Associates Degree utilizing FREE MOOC Structure - An Open Letter to the Secretary of Education
To all of my friends who have already begun dividing themselves from their family and friends due to politicians, please allow me to provide clarification regarding Obama's Free Associates program. And heck, even a solution.
First, this idea was never supposed to pass. His intent was never to give you free college. If that was the President's intent, he'd have done it when he had control of both sides of congress. No, he proposed this because he knows that the Republicans will oppose it. And he hopes this forces the youth vote to go to the Democrats in 2016 (It didn't). If for some reason the Rs don't take the bait and a version of the idea passes, he wins because he's once again increased the size of government in our lives and created more wealth spreading. ACTUAL SOLUTION: If Obama actually wanted to give a free education he'd have a professional educator within the Dept of Education (assuming there is one) develop an Associates of Arts and Associates of Science curriculum completely consisting of ALREADY FREE courses that you can take online. People completing the curriculum are awarded an Obama Associates Degree. It took me about 45 minutes yesterday to find 60 hours of English, math, history, arts, physical science and elective courses taught by Ivy League schools such as MIT, George Washington Univ, Harvard, Univ Texas, Rice, Stanford, Brown... For more info on these free courses start at www.coursera.org, www.mooc-list.com, www.edx.org, www.oeconsortium.org, heck even iTunes U! If you're a politician and actual education of the population is your goal, there's no excuse. Do it now. These courses are online with little to no overhead. Don't let politicians sweet talk you into stealing money from all in order to send more people toward an ever-decreasingly valuable college degree! Here is my open letter to the Secretary of Education: Honorable Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, According to College Board, since 1990 college tuition and fees have ballooned nearly 160% (after adjusting for inflation) and have doubled yet again since 2007, amassing more than $1 trillion in debt [1] [2]. The average college graduate now completes a Bachelor’s Degree encumbered with $26,000 in student debt. Additionally, U.S. is experiencing a swelling of student loan defaults, wage garnishments, credit score impairments and higher fees associated with failure to repay loans. Higher costs are the culmination of three primary conditions. Firstly, the recent economic downturn has squeezed funding to colleges creating budget shortfalls. These shortfalls have been mitigated by shifting the burden onto the students, thus resulting in tuition rates increasing at 8% per year and doubling every nine! [3] Figure’s 1-4 reveal the decrease in federal funding during post-recessionary years compared with the increases in tuition costs. Figure 5 reveals how recessionary pressures force governments to reduce their spending and increasingly shift the burden to students.
Furthermore, colleges have experienced the ‘Third-Party Payer Problem’ where users of a service aren’t directly paying the bills. Since guaranteed federal student loans and grants are not capped at logical rates, but instead, based on any price set by universities, the institutions have little incentive to cut costs or curb excessive spending. Aware that students will just borrow more, colleges solve budgetary issues by increasing tuition perpetually. Demonstrating a similar abuse is the example where a university was incentivized to pay homeless individuals a small $2,000 stipend in order to receive a guaranteed $20,000 from government coffers.
Finally, the higher education sector suffers from ‘administrative bloat’. As budgets expanded in prosperous times, universities invested in greater infrastructure and expansive services to attract new students. Equally, the pace of associated administrators and non-professorial staff has exponentially outpaced actual educators, and in some cases, educators having actually diminished. This administrative expansion creates greater bureaucratic complexity and requires more funding spent on wages, benefits and pensions. [6] President Obama outlined a plan in his 2016 Budget to provide matching federal grants to states that waive the cost of tuition for students seeking an Associate’s Degree. This renewed national focus on the increased cost of postsecondary education and associated political will to curb costs has created an environment ripe for policy change. A Massively Open Online Course (MOOC) is a model seeking to augment educational institutions by using simple widespread-technology such as smartphones. These courses consist of lectures that have been prerecorded for convenient offline viewing along with forum discussions, assignments and quizzes taking place online. There are currently over 4,000 courses from hundreds of prestigious universities (even University of Dayton!) that offer free MOOC classes. In 2013, the University of Maryland was among the first wave of schools to begin accepting these transferrable credits toward a degree. With companies like Udacity and StraighterLine already producing accredited courses, high scalability has been proven as costs of course development are quickly returned by iterating the courseware to class sizes of upwards to 225,000 registrants. [7]
DOE has the unique ability to solve this issue. This policy recommendation simply advances that DOE reprogram a small cadre of educators with the mission of aggregating and accrediting the full spectrum of free and near-free courses which comprise a standard Associate of Arts/Science degree. Students are then provided variety of which ENGL 1302 or which HIST 1301 they enroll in and therefore bypass the monopolistic relationship that befalls a student enrolling in a traditional university. Additionally, free-market principles would force universities and course providers to keep costs low while also demanding greater innovation in delivery and content. At a time when more students than ever must maintain full-time employment while attending school, this added flexibility is exceedingly valuable.
Costs associated with this policy would be offset by federal Pell Grant savings not being paid out during the student’s first two educational years. Pell money was initially created to ensure poorer citizens had equal opportunity to afford higher education, however it has ballooned into much, much more. The Congressional Pell expansion of 2007 “expanded eligibility and funding for the program, which resulted in a doubling of the number of Pell recipients since 2008.”[8] Consequently, Pell spending now eclipses $33 billion amongst all undergraduates, easily the largest share of DOE’s budget. Significant savings can be achieved when two of a student’s four-to-five years of undergraduate education require no subsidization at all. Shifting Pell funding from mandatory to discretionary would furthermore allow greater Congressional oversight on a year-to-year basis. We are currently in a unique “education pre-bubble” phase where decisive action can provide the flexibility the higher education industry and its budgets need. Millions of Americans can complete their Associate's Degree without the ill redistributive effects of taxes, subsidies or increased bureaucracies. "Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day."
References
1. Donna M. Desrochers and Rita Kirshstein, “Labor Intensive or Labor Expensive? Changing Staffing and Compensation Patterns in Higher Education,” Delta Cost Project, February 2014. 2. Judah Bellin, “Tuition Will Keep Increasing as Long as Washington Bases Loans on College Costs,” Washington Examiner, August 23, 2013. 3. Naked Law, “Eight Reasons College Tuition is the Next Bubble to Burst,” National Center for Policy Analysis, June 08, 2010. 4. Phil Oliff, Vincent Palacios, Ingrid Johnson and Michael Leachman, “Recent Deep State Higher Education Cuts May Harm Students and the Economy for Years to Come,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, March 19, 2013. 5. Jon Marcus, “New Analysis shows Problematic Boom in Higher Ed Administrators,” New England Center for Investigative Reporting, February 6, 2014. 6. Anne Ryman, “GOLDWATER INSTITUTE: Nation’s Universities Suffer from Administrative Bloat,” The Arizona Republic, August 17, 2010. 7. Kathryn Pandes, “Online Course Advances Understanding of Retirement Planning and Pension Policy,” Stanford Graduate School of Business, February 3, 2014. 8. Lindsey Burke, “4 Key Reforms That Could Make Colleges More Affordable,” The Heritage Foundation, September 15, 2014. 9. Angelica Gonzalez, Courtney O’Sullivan, “Why is College so Expensive?” National Center for Policy Analysis, No. 726, September 30, 2010.
Complete document here:
Check out more from LibertyLOL: |
Search the
libertyLOL Archives: Archives
December 2020
Search and Shop on Amazon.com!
Tom Wood's Liberty Classroom"Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day...."
At Liberty Classroom, you can learn real U.S. history, Western civilization, and free-market economics from professors you can trust. Short on time? No problem. You can learn in your car. Find out more! |