Thursday, June 16, 2005

George and Silent Dick's Secret Tax

We hear a great deal about taxes. Who should be taxed, and how much, are points of great controversy here in the United States (there in the United States if this is being read by persons not currently within our borders). There is a secret tax that is little noted nor long remembered and for all the Republican posturing, about how taxation stifles economic growth, the truth of the matter is never wholly acknowledged. If we accept the conservative premise that every dollar that the government removes from the private sector economy is a burden, then it follows that taxation is not the most important issue when it comes to our burdensome government. It would seem that government spending, not taxation, is the key to the government’s economically burdensome policies. When the government spends a dollar it must get that dollar from somewhere. In the simplest terms (I have neither the knowledge nor inclination to describe the many nuances that permeate this process) the government has three choices to get their dollar.

They can tax their constituents.

They can borrow money.

They can print money.

The ideology of our current administration is that the first option is bad. People work hard for their money and they should be allowed to keep it. If we take people’s money from them they will buy fewer things. If people buy fewer things then businesses will produce fewer things. If businesses produce fewer things then they lay people off or reduce wages. The cycle continues until every one is out of work and nothing is getting done. The opposite is then true by definition. Tax people less and they will spend more, so businesses must produce more, so wages go up and more people are employed.

We need to find a better way to fund our government. We can’t take the risk of sinking our economy through taxation. So let’s borrow that dollar we need for our government. The problem with borrowing money (as anyone with a credit card can attest) is the interest. The financial markets work under the same supply vs. demand laws that all other markets do. So every dollar the government borrows is a dollar a private citizen can’t borrow to buy a house or car, and a business can’t borrow to build a new factory or buy more supplies. If we take the money people want to borrow then they will buy fewer things. If people buy fewer things then businesses will produce fewer things. If businesses produce fewer things then… I’ve seen this somewhere before.

If only there was another way to fund our government that did not take money from the people who need it in order to fuel our economy. As a child I didn’t understand why the government had to borrow money. They have a printer. Print all you want to spend, and when you’re done print some more. As an adult, it’s remarkably obvious why it doesn’t work that way. Every new dollar the government prints and spends with out removing another dollar from circulation devalues the currency. Inflation! The economy, as a whole, works much like an auction the amount of money is finite and the amount of goods is finite, then the government shows up with new money and as a result prices go up. If we raise people’s prices they will buy fewer things. If people buy fewer things then businesses will produce fewer things. If businesses produce fewer things then… Hummm, back here again.

It doesn’t matter from a global economic perspective how the government gets its cash, it still has to take it from the economy. Therefore, borrowing and inflation become a secret tax. We don’t see a line item like “FICA” on our check, or “sales tax” on our bill. We don’t receive a statement describing our reduced buying power with our property tax forms. It all just happens so slowly that we don’t even notice unless we are reading a stupid blog.

This isn’t an attack focused on the current administration alone. I just couldn’t resist the title after I thought of it.

8 Comments:

At June 17, 2005 5:20 AM, Blogger Charlie said...

By heck, we need Hoover back in the White House!

DeVries in '08!! Will you be old enough? I don't think you will... okay, DeVries in '12!!

 
At June 17, 2005 11:03 AM, Blogger Jessica said...

hooray for all the not-residing-in-the-US-currently people who read your blog!! I like the title too. :-)

 
At June 17, 2005 1:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I posted my comment under the wrong blog entry. Ooops!

 
At June 17, 2005 4:23 PM, Blogger Mark said...

You're right Dave. You did post your comment in the wrong place. So here is a little post I like to call "What Dave Said."

I think the conservative premise may be wrong. The economy and the government aren’t nearly as much at odds as they would have us believe. In fact, the government is pretty much a part of the economy, isn’t it?

I mean, what happens to all those tax dollars anyway? The government uses them to pay people to stand out in the hot sun and hold up “Stop” and “Slow” signs next to highway construction projects--right? Then those people take their money to Wal-Mart and HyVee, and they buy stuff. And HyVee and Wal-Mart use the highways for their big trucks. It’s all good for the economy.

Or the government buys tanks and planes and rifles to keep terrorists from blowing up our insurance companies--which allows the insurance companies to keep doing their economic thing and besides, the rifle manufacturers pay their employees, who then go out and buy stuff at Wal-Mart.

It would be a problem if the government kept our tax dollars in a big pile in the basement of the White House and never let them out. But I don’t believe that happens very often.

 
At June 17, 2005 4:43 PM, Blogger Mark said...

What are you doing Dave? You’re developing an argument with some sort of a logical premise, thoughtful consideration and a supportable conclusion.

You make a good point. The government spends the money just as fast and furious as the private sector so it should be a wash. I agree with you. Economists, in my experience, do not. The argument most often used on me has been that government is less efficient with their spending and therefore taxation stifles the economy. If they are correct about government spending being less efficient then the “spending” is the problem not the taxing. I would counter that the private sector economy is not as efficient as the average supply side capitalist would lead us to believe.

 
At June 17, 2005 5:42 PM, Blogger Charlie said...

The goverment's more likely to spend money overseas, too, isn't it? Foreign aid and military supplies & salaries and whatnot? Does that make a difference?

 
At March 09, 2010 7:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At December 04, 2010 10:16 AM, Anonymous free grandfather incest stories said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home