Taxes are Theft

Interestingly, there’s some evidence that Alan Greenspan, early in his tenure as Fed Chairman, thought fraud was something that didn’t need government regulation - that the market itself would take care of it. He came to regret this stance when the various derivative disasters came to light.

From Frontline: The Warning

NARRATOR: And that’s how Brooksley Born ended up running the obscure CFTC[Commodity Futures Trading Commission].

MICHAEL GREENBERGER: I think to some extent, you could view this as a consolation prize. To the general world, people who knew Brooksley, the circle she traveled, the American Bar Association, the DC Bar, all the prestigious boards she served on, people were probably scratching their heads.

NARRATOR: An experienced financial litigator who’d seen the worst of the markets, Born was a believer in government regulation. Given the political climate in Washington at the time, clashes with Greenspan, Rubin and Summers were inevitable. Almost right away, she had one. It began after she received an invitation to lunch at the Federal Reserve with the chairman himself.

MANUEL ROIG-FRANZIA: How could you not have a little bit of butterflies in your stomach when you’re going to see Alan Greenspan at that moment in time?

NARRATOR: It didn’t take long for Born to learn that she and the chairman were not going to see eye to eye.

JOE NOCERA: He said something to the effect that, “Well, Brooksley, we’re never going to agree on fraud.” And she said, “Well, what do you mean?” And he said, “`You probably think there should be rules against it.” And she said, “Well, yes, I do.” He said, you know, “I think the market will figure it out and take care of the fraudsters.”

INTERVIEWER: The Alan Greenspan lunch did it actually happen? Where he says

BROOKSLEY BORN: I’m not going to talk about it. I’m not going to talk about it on camera.

NARRATOR: Born is reluctant to speak about her meetings with Greenspan or others in the Clinton administration. Greenspan refused to speak to FRONTLINE at all. But Born’s advisers did.

MICHAEL GREENBERGER: Greenspan didn’t believe that fraud was something that needed to be enforced, and he assumed she probably did. And of course, she did. I’ve never met a financial regulator who didn’t feel that fraud was part of their mission.

MANUEL ROIG-FRANZIA: And this is an absolute stunner for the new head of this tiny agency who is charged with making sure people don’t commit fraud.

NANCY DUFF CAMPBELL: Well, I think she was taken aback about how far he would go towards deregulation, that even the notion that we should police fraudulent activity he didn’t think was something that was a given.
…later on, near the end of the documentary, after the collapse of AIG…

NARRATOR: …Alan Greenspan retired from the Federal Reserve just before the crisis hit in 2006. Last year, he once again appeared before the Congress.

RON SUSKIND: You see Greenspan at the hearing table after the collapse, and you see a crushed man, really.

ROGER LOWENSTEIN: He said that the premise that you could trust the markets to regulate themselves was misplaced.

Rep. HENRY WAXMAN (D), California: [October 23, 2008] You have been a staunch advocate for letting markets regulate themselves. And my question for you is simple. Were you wrong?

ALAN GREENSPAN: Yes. I found a flaw, but I’ve been very distressed by that fact.

Rep. HENRY WAXMAN: You found a flaw in the reality.

ALAN GREENSPAN: Flaw, flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works, so to speak.

Rep. HENRY WAXMAN: In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right.

ALAN GREENSPAN: Precisely. No, that’s precisely the reason I was shocked because I’ve been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: After almost two decades of public service, he realizes that the economic philosophy that he had pushed so hard, resisting regulation of derivatives he realized that there were some fundamental flaws in that whole philosophy.

JOE NOCERA: It was a pretty incredible moment that after a lifetime of faith in a certain way the world worked, that Greenspan would say, “I was wrong.”

ROGER LOWENSTEIN: It struck me as someone admitting that the core belief that had animated, you know, basically, a 20-year, 18-year career as Fed chief was wrong. It’s stunning, but it doesn’t undo the damage.

By denying relief that costs you relatively little to provide, you are making them suffer.

No, the implication is that you benefit merely from the existence of society, and everyone benefits in a society in which people suffer less overall. We all benefit when we are responsible for each other.

What makes you think that all misfortune results from irresponsibility? Even if some of it does, what does it matter how they are “supposed” to be treated?

Look, your whole argument is based on so many fallacious assumptions that this is going to just go around in circles. Among them are that your good fortune is solely attributable to your responsible behavior and that you generate personal wealth in a manner that is divorced from the workings of the rest of society. Unless you start addressing basic questions like these and many others mentioned in this thread, there is going to be no progress at all.

So long as your focus remains on some kind of righteous satisfaction in letting people suffer and die when an organized society can take steps to ameliorate such suffering, then there’s really little more to say. Say you get your wish, what then? Will you be living in a world that gives you more satisfaction than it does now? It very well might be a world in which it is impossible for you to live in that house that’s far enough from everyone else’s house, because there will be no transportation, water, power, or other services. Would you be content to live in a world in which you have to live like a 15th century settler, providing for all your needs yourself? Because without a complex level of social cooperation, modern technology and services would never develop. It would simply not be available for you to buy no matter how much money you have.

What makes you so sure it’s working?

We’re putting all this money into public schools to have kids drift their way through and come out barely literate.

The whole idea was supposed to be that by providing “free” education to the poor, their kids would have an opportunity to compete.

So my rhetorical question intended to have us all look at the failing inner city school systems. The religious garbage being taught in “public” schools. And wonder if we’re getting what we were promised.

Has the war on drugs accomplished anything?

Is a massive military industrial complex made us safer, or less safe?

I would love to have to pay a lot more taxes.

Clearly we need a baseline comparison, like the experiences of someone living on an island who pays no taxes and gets no services.

This is of course merely right wing paranoid hysteria.

We are living in a society in which children are educated to a level that’s higher than any in history, and the graduates of public schools started by making the United States an economic, military, and scientific powerhouse in the 19th and 20th centuries and have gone on to contribute to technological advancement at an ever increasing rate.

Has it gone unnoticed to you that the countries that have been the most successful and benefited the most are the ones that have taken steps to try to offer education to as many people as possible? Has it gone unnoticed to you that the countries that continue to struggle with widespread hardship and instability are ones that have not yet managed to figure out how to confer the benefits of public education to the masses? That the countries most suffering from social instability and religious fundamentalism are the ones whose public infrastructures are broken and children have no choice but to go to extremist religious figures for education?

Of course there are problems in certain sectors of society in which the system is not working as well as it should or as it is hoped it will. Does that mean we are churning out millions of barely literate lumps of human bloodsuckers? Is that what you see around you when you open your eyes?

Your argument seems to be that the absence of perfection is the sign of failure. You don’t see an excluded middle? You don’t see a sliding scale on which even given that we could and should make improvements that we have achieved something worthwhile in improving our society?

And it has. America’s poor are, collectively speaking, the most prosperous and successful and productive poor in the world.

I think you are maybe intending this in reply to someone else’s post. I’m not trying to create a hypothetical scary world, and I haven’t promised you anything.

I’m not sure whether you are quoting someone else here, or whether I’m talking to someone with a multiple personality disorder. Please indicate which of the statements above is your position, and maybe I’ll have a go at responding.

Oh, I think I see what you are doing there. If so, then you appear to be setting up straw men with the bits in quotes. I certainly haven’t made those statements. I will say, in general, that your apparent notion that taxes are worthless if they don’t prevent 100% of societal problems seems rather peculiar.

Look, I can’t spend all night on this. Could you please just tell me why I, personally, should give a rat’s ass whether you think your taxes are too high or not? It would really save a lot of wasted time.

(Haven’t read the whole thread yet, but…)

So where exactly did you learn to read and write and form sentences, and pose questions and, well, think your way to this clever philosophy?

What’s that you say? A publicly funded school and teachers? How many years? Huh. Go figure, it got you to where you are today, but screw the next generation, let them be ignorant savages. How can that not be good for society, imagine how free they’ll feel!

Then somebody put a rifle in your hand, sent you off to Vietnam?

Meh. I think there is a kernel of truth to the OP, but it’s not fleshed out very well. I’ll try to flesh it out as I see it.

All taxation is not “theft.” However, all taxation does involve the use of force. The use of force is only OK if it is justified. For example, it is not OK to walk up to a random person on the street and shoot them in the head, but if someone breaks into your house at night and threatens your family, it is OK to shoot them in the head.

So, what does it take to justify the use of force necessary to tax? I think that the use of force is justified only when the money will be used to pay for certain things (things that I refer to as a “legitimate government function” or “LGF”). IMHO, LGFs are those things that meet the following two requirements: (i) they benefit all citizens more or less equally and (ii) they are something that couldn’t be done effectively if the government didn’t do it.

Examples of LGFs are the military, police, courts, and roads. Examples of things that aren’t LGFs are any programs that are designed to redistribute wealth (like the earned income tax credit).

Why is it up to me to supply them relief? Why am I forced to help?

If people want to help, want to alleviate suffering, let them. I’m not stopping anyone from providing relief. I’m simply saying that I don’t want to fund it.

What we have now is a system where by force of law I am required to pay to alleviate other people’s suffering. Why not let me choose freely who, when, and how much I want to help?

Sure, except it seems like I’m the only one being responsible, and I’m the only one footing the bill. But I don’t get a say in how other people behave. They are “free” to act as they want, as irresponsibly as they want, and then I’m expected to help alleviate their suffering.

Imagine if an entire city was built below sea level, behind a half-ass damn. And instead of the residents taking responsibility themselves, and paying for the damn that was protecting them, they expected everyone else to pay for it. Why am I paying for a damn that I’m not using. When I don’t think it’s a responsible place to have a city? Then the damn fails, the city is flooded, and I’m again paying for the recovery, building, and all that goes along with a series of really bad decisions.

They are more than free to make their own choices and live where they want, but they should have to pay for those choices. If they want to live below sea level, let them pay for the damn collectively and leave me out of it.

Which is why way back when I ask for an example of misfortune that is not the result of irresponsibility. I have yet to get an answer.

I don’t want people to suffer and die. I get no satisfaction from it. But what I’ve realized is that I’m powerless to stop it. People are going to suffer and die regardless of how many more government programs we create.

Think about how many people smoke. Why? Why would any one choose that lifestyle? It will only lead to suffering and death. So we’ve got millions of smokers, and I’m supposed to pay to alleviate their suffering.

I could go on if you’d like. Motor and bicycle riders without helmets. Obesity. Bad financial sense.

I’m simply advocating for a system of personal responsibility. Let me have my money, and you have your money.

If you want to help alleviate suffering, do it. I know I will. And I’ll make sure that the money I donate goes to worthwhile charities that doesn’t piss away government funds (cough ACORN cough).

But that simply isn’t the case. It’s the world we’ve created but it doesn’t have to be that way. My cottage is on private land. We have a private road that we pay for. We haul our garbage to a collection area and pay to have it removed. We could have an individual generator, or if a company wanted to make profit, they’d build a power plant to service our needs.

Like I said over and over and over, I’m all for user fees. I will pay for a local police force, that represents my area, and keeps crack off my streets. I’m not paying for a bloated federal system pissing away billions on a failed war against drugs. I will pay for my share of a local fire department. And my share of the local roads I use and the plows required to clear them.

If it means that goods and services cost more, I’m all for that. Because that means the real cost is apparent and then I can choose for myself.

You guys are so gun-ho for federal highways, but the result was that the federal government gets to boss states around on bullshit like drinking ages.

If I, who usually cannot afford a restaurant meal for myself and my wife more often than perhaps once a month, are invited by wealthier friends to join them, then yes, I do. They offered. In the public sphere, that’s called charitable giving or volunteerism.

On the other hand, when I was possessed of a good income, I thought it only fair that a small proportion of my taxes went to subsidize meals for families struggling to stay afloat. That’s called living in a society.

By the way, how do you expect to keep your precious property. There won’t be any volunteer cops defending your property at the risk of their own lives without renumeration; there won’t be any fire departments if the neighorhood eyesore catches fire and it could spread to your property. And there are a LOT of people who are eying your property with covetousness, since there is no punishment for taking it from you. In fact, you probably cannot leave off guarding it, even to eat, sleep, or void yourself of bodily waste.

You may think this ideal. The rest of us think it’s something out of William Golding.

The section you quoted was my response to The Hamster King.

For some reason you jumped in and got frustrated that I asked rhetorical questions. If you’re busy we’ll be okay here without you. If you’ve got the time, read The Hamster King’s post that I was responding to.

People are going to suffer and die no matter how much you personally donate to charities. So why should you bother donating to charities?

Yeesh almighty. “Poor guy thinks it’s ‘fair’ for rich people to be forced to give stuff to poor people, news at 11.”

It ain’t just the poor we reward for having children. In addition to income tax deductions, I am forced to subsidize the education of other people’s kids through property taxes, some of them richer than me.

Many of these breeders also claim to be more ‘conservative’ than me, but they somehow manage to live with their theft of my money.

Strangely, I’ve never been able to convince these “thieves” to give me my hard-earned money back.

Maybe you can talk to them, “conservative” to “conservative”?

Okey-doke, dude. Enjoy the rest of your thread. I’m quite sure that your method of argument is going to get lots of folks agreeing with you.

Ow! Now I need a new irony meter.

I’m willing to pay double my current income taxes in order to support my view of the duties of my government. I don’t make bad money these days; should my income tax double, I still wouldn’t make bad money.

Yes, exactly! Volunteerism. They offer, and you accept. Notice that you don’t call them up, tell them you lost a bunch of money at the track, and demand food. You give them the choice to take you out to dinner. Choice is good. I like choice. I want more choice.

Why does it have to be through taxes?

I hope everyone reads that last point.

Why does it have to be taxes? I actually give a significant chunk of my time and money to a charity that does just that. That’s right, I’m not a horrible selfish person.

And if I had more time and more money, such as if I had to work less to make as much money, I could give more to them. I like them, I like what they do. I want to give them more money, but I can’t, because I’m forced to have my money to go to shitty charities pissing it away.

See, this is where you love the argument. Why do you assume it will be volunteer cops and volunteer firefighters? I will gladly pay for services I use. And because I’m paying directly, there will be a contractual obligation to provide me with service.

As it was established in a previous thread, I have no right to police protection. They are under no obligation to come to my house and protect me from harm. But yet, I’m paying a chunk of my income for them to be there doing something.

What’s worse, is that by making that point, you are implying that people aren’t eying my property and that people won’t rob me. They will, and they don’t bother to check how much I pay in taxes.

As for the eye sore that catches fire, it again goes to responsibility. If I feel my house is threatened, I should be able to provide for my own security. Why on earth would I leave a giant humanoid pile of straw near my house?

If my neighbour is creating giant strawmen that risk my safety it’s up to be to me to take responsibility.