Where in the world: Going Galt and Wreck-overy.gov logo-mania
Scheduled to appear on Fox & Friends this morning for the regular 8:15am Eastern gig. They want to talk about the “Going Galt” phenomenon and our Wreckovery.gov photoshop contest.
*Update: See also my discussion with Instapundit Glenn Reynolds on PJTV here.*
Four more “Going Galt” items for you:
*GOP Rep. John Campbell comments to the Washington Independent:
“People are starting to feel like we’re living through the scenario that happened in ‘Atlas Shrugged,’” said Campbell. “The achievers, the people who create all the things that benefit rest of us, are going on strike. I’m seeing, at a small level, a kind of protest from the people who create jobs, the people who create wealth, who are pulling back from their ambitions because they see how they’ll be punished for them.”
Reader Pete e-mails:
May I please offer an example of why I am about to “Go Galt?”
My wife and I are both teachers, so we are not nearly in the upper income brackets. However, I do some consulting on the side and the taxation on that income is unbelievable:
- 25% federal income tax
- 9.3% state income tax
- 7.65% self-employed Social Security and Medicare tax
- 7.65% “employee” Social Security and Medicare taxSo I am paying a nearly 50% tax on the income from my little consulting business. 50%! So, to heck with this. I’m “going Galt” on my consulting.
(A side note: Most of my consulting has to do with training teachers to teach Advanced Placement classes. I don’t mean to sound self-absorbed, but I have a pretty strong reputation, and teachers report back that the training they have taken with me has helped their students to be far more successful on the challenging AP exams. But at this point, Michelle, I don’t care. I’m fed up. Let somebody else in my modest income bracket pay the federal government 50% of his/her earnings.)
And many interesting comments in Megan McCardle’s thread on the subject, including these:
Three examples I personally know of:
1. I recently talked to a record shop owner, who had two shops, four employees, open seven days a week. He let go all four employees, closed one shop, is only open five days a week, and reduced hours at that. Result? Almost the same take-home, and greatly reduced blood pressure.
2. The owner of a small custom stained-glass shop, where I am currently taking a class, let one employee go because the additional income she brought in was not worth the added hassle.
3. I retired from a pretty good job at the end of last year, at the age of 61. I could easily have kept working, or found another job. With pension, and social security in a few months, my gross will be considerably less. But, after taxes are taken into account, the net is not all that much less. I figured that I was working in a pretty high-stress job, for little incremental income.
By the way, I have talked to other folks in similar positions, who have run the numbers in the same way I did. Most of them realize they are knocking themselves out for a few bucks an hour, but keep going out of inertia, or a sense of duty. But if things get even worse, as I suspect they will, expect more upper-middle-income to upper-income folks to quietly drop out.
I would be interested to hear if other readers know of similar cases.
Posted by Uncle Bill | March 4, 2009 9:29 PM***
I’m going to add a few more anecdotes, in the hope that of pushing the total over that needed to become data.
Quite a few people in my line of work are taking the slow season off, and I know a few older entrepreneurs who have drastically downsized their business.
Higher taxes are probably not going to stop status-hungry single blue-state urbanites from working like slaves to make partner. That’s why there’s such support for high taxes in that demographic – they’re interested in status, not money. Money doesn’t really matter that much when no matter how much you make you’ve still got roommates.
It’s unlikely people are going to go Suvivorman on us, which saddens me, because I love the show.
However, higher taxes are going to hit at the margin – mostly older entrepreneurs winding down their life’s businesses a few years earlier, late-middle-aged people retiring early, small businessmen substituting highly-regulated labor with slightly lower-returning capital (possibly by outsourcing)
I know I certainly have made plans to travel more and work less.
Posted by secret asian man | March 4, 2009 9:49 PM***
While it’s certainly unlikely that any huge percentage of America’s most productive people will “go Galt” — even partially — you already have a fair amount of anecdotal information right here to suggest this will matter at the margin.
If I were a wealthy 55-year-old in Manhattan, I might seriously think about early retirement rather than paying 60 percent of my income in federal, state and city taxes.
Also, and probably more importantly, if I were a brilliant scientist or engineer from the third world, rising tax rates would certainly alter my calculations about which rich nation to grace with my productivity — especially considering the added bonus of the anti-H1B movement in Congress.
Add all that up and guess what, the economy will probably grow a bit slower over the next few years than it otherwise would have. Atlas Shrugged in a minor key.
Posted by Scoop | March 4, 2009 10:54 PM
And from Stephen Spruiell’s readers:
I am a CPA who spent the the better part of the last 7 years working in public accounting. It is not only the increase in the rate that scares those who are making the $250K plus, but the FICA taxes Obama wants to throw on it too. So really it would be a jump not to 39%, but more like 53% when you factor that in. Most of my savvier colleagues in public practice, as soon as it became apparent that Obama was going to get elected, immediately started advising clients to accelerate as much income into 2008 as possible and push as much expenses into 2009. Pay any large dvidends or distributions out of your company in 2008 before either the dividend tax rate goes up or those distributions from your S-corporation are subject to FICA. On top of that, some of the earners will probably ease up, figuring it isn’t worth giving up 60% of your income (when your factor state taxes) to the government. Some who own small businesses will just not hire or invest in new equipment.
***
… while it may be true that under Obama the marginal effect is only 2, 4, or 6% (depending on what actually passes from his budget), I think the greater effect is the psychological line that Obama has so clearly drawn in the sand. If the tax rates are adjusted so that someone making 250,000 is taxed at 39.6%, if this person is self-employed, they are looking at a total tax rate of up to 61.4% on each dollar over $250,000. [61.4% = Federal Income Tax (39.6), State Rate (up to 10.3% in California), and self-employment tax rate (roughly 11.5% when you take into account your deduction for ½ of the self-employment tax)].
I am a tax accountant, don’t consider myself to be an idiot, and I am right in Obama’s income target range. I will be joining those looking to limit hours worked so as not to enter that 60% territory. Part of the motivation will be the self satisfaction of not contributing to the socialist cause.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
CPAC vs. the Occupiers: Keep calm and carry silly string
February 9, 2012 10:15 AM by Michelle Malkin
109 Comments
Femme-a-gogue Debbie Wasserman Schultz smears Tea Party, exploits Tucson massacre anniversary
January 11, 2012 02:13 PM by Michelle Malkin
185 Comments
Romney: I’m the Ideal Tea Party Candidate; Update: Des Moines Register Endorses Romney
December 17, 2011 04:05 PM by Doug Powers
158 Comments
New DNC Ad Portrays Newt Gingrich as Tea Party Godfather
December 11, 2011 11:59 AM by Doug Powers
105 Comments
Occupy Wall Street Shuts Down Production of Law & Order Episode About Occupy Wall Street
December 9, 2011 03:20 PM by Doug Powers
67 Comments
Document drop: What Scholastic is teaching your kids about the Occupiers
December 9, 2011 11:30 AM by Michelle Malkin
102 Comments
Video: On Beltway Newt, Cupcake Mitt, and Lame-Duck Barney
December 1, 2011 09:12 AM by Michelle Malkin
163 Comments
Categories: Going Galt,Tea Party
Pundit & Pundette
» Bishop Jenky, Nicki Minaj, and the "98%"Sister Toldjah
» Obama’s new budget is a bad jokeJustOneMinute
» We Hear From The Department Of Good Ideas And False Choices
Good luck Michelle. Don’t forget to tell the listeners that their 401k is now 201k….and could be NOk by the end of the year.
The DVR is set. Can’t wait! Will you be on Cavuto as well?
The other trend we’re seeing more of here in the northeast is a desire to ‘barter’ goods and services. Technically, one must declair the value and pay taxes, but many are so fed up with the gov’t, they’re at the ‘screw you’ stage of frustration.
Don’t be surprised to see “discount for cash” signs popping up as small scale money laundering starts.
My wife has told me that she is just waiting for things to warm up enough in WA for her to plant what she likes to call her “Going Galt Garden” (try saying that one 3 times fast).
I saw a funny sign this morning on the way to work. It read: “I claimed the Federal Government as a dependant on my tax return”. The sign is in a dark blue town in a dark blue state.
Incentives matter, and they work, for good or ill. If Obama really cared about the health of our economy, he would be doing something to help private enterprise create jobs, not taxing them into their shells, or worse, to death. He should be cutting red tape, reducing taxes, and reducing other barriers to entry for creating and expanding business (AKA, creating jobs).
But Obama doesn’t care about the health of our economy. In fact, a tanking economy serves him and his ilk very well. Is it so much to ask for a President that cares more about the welfare of the nation than about how to get more people on welfare?
Good Luck MM. Let’s see if they actually let you talk and stay on topic this time. Keep the giggling goons in check.
Wife and I, having paid a small fortune in taxes over the past 57 years, have positioned ourself into zero taxes for 2008 (fed and st).
I hurt so bad for our military and current generation. God bless um.
We need a place where people can add ideas on how to “Go Galt”. I am not in a position to actually be hit by the tax hike, however, I still want to support the cause! (I could reach this point soon.) If a CPA on the message board could support us, I think this would be a great movement!
The self-imposed cut in productivity will be a hard pill for the libs to swallow. Liberal social engineering proponents are in for a rude awakening.
The anecdotal examples show the thought processes people go through when they’re on the edge of a bigger tax bracket, or who get caught up in the hassles of obeying the law. Notice anything about these people who’ve gone Galt? They are not tax cheats. They declare their income. The consultant probably could have “pulled a Geithner” by simply not declaring his income, but he was a honest taxpayer, not at all like high-fliers in the Democratic Party. If people go Galt, it’s not because they want to rob society, its because society has been robbing them. How’s that for Hope and Change?
Excellent! You rocked on FF… Let the John Galts of the world unite!
Very good appearance again.
Speaking of Going Galt, I’ve heard second-hand stories of people with a lot more money than I moving out of the country and renouncing their citizenship to avoid Uncle Sam the Taxman. That second step, including not admitting that it is for tax purposes, is vital. The feds demand their triple-plus tithe even if none of it is earned in America, and they won’t let you leave if you slip up and admit that the reason why you want to leave is you don’t think they deserve nearly 40% of what you make.
That is not entirely true. I am a US Contractor in Iraq and I get a sizable portion of my pay tax free. The stipulation is that I have to be out of the country for 330 days out of a 365 day period. Of course this is in jeopardy too under this new administration.
Theft of property. In a real world, Obama and company would go to jail. But this isn’t a real world anymore…it’s post modernism.
I’ve done some consulting on the side too and have roughly the same calculations to report.
What gets me is that when you gripe about something like this all too many people return a blank “Well, you still made extra money” stare.
As a small business owner I will be cutting back on my work load. I will use my extra time to remodel my house and do other tasks I would normally hire someone for. My income will be down but so will my expenses. My net result will be the same amount of money in my pocket with less headaches. Obama’s net result will be lower employment and no new tax revenue from me.
However, according to lgm and Chapoutidiot, none of the above people has any idea what they’re talking about, and they’re all liars anyway.
Unemployed journalists prepare for their new “careers.”
“Galt Garden” I like it. I think I’ll put a sign in my garden.
How about this for a Bumper Sticke,
“Reward the Parasites and Punish the Producers!”
Barakology 101
You’re still paying plenty in sales and corporate taxes, and that’s still going to increase (especially if personal income tax revenue drops). Texas is among the states with no income tax, but they still get their pound of flesh from sales and property taxes, not to mention fees and fines.
You are such a wit txvet! Were you up all night coming up with that bon mot?
I never said people were stupid for thinking that our taxes are too high. I said they were stupid to think that their entire income is taxed at the marginal rate. Try to spend less time coming up with terribly clever word plays on my name and more time keeping up with the discussion.
Ok, Chaps chases the one tree about a woman’s confusion on marginal taxes, and completely misses the forest. The forest being Obama’s declaration of war on the productive citizens of this country, including a declaration of war on oil and gas production in this country, the second largest source of income to the Federal treasury.
Typical.
Maybe it is typical lawyerly tactics, when the facts are totally against him, he pounds the table about some minor side issue.
BINGO!
On March 5th, 2009 at 8:31 am, Truesoldier said:
I am a US Contractor in Iraq and I get a sizable portion of my pay tax free. The stipulation is that I have to be out of the country for 330 days out of a 365 day period. Of course this is in jeopardy too under this new administration
Color me shocked, SHOCKED that the ObamiNation is going for that cash. As I said, it’s second-hand stories I heard; I’m not connected enough to be able to earn off-shore cash.
Okay; how did I lose the blockquote?
Excellent appearance on F&F. Keep the pressure on!
steveegg,
That tack was tried during the Carter Horror years and blew up in his face after a majority of workers on contracts working overseas left and came back to the States. I know one thing, I will not put anything past this Empty Suit as President.
Totally against me? Where did I express any opinion as to the merits of the tax cut rollbacks?
But interesting how one tends to relegate an issue to the “side” when it does not fit their narrative.
But whatever you feel, you really do need to quit with the hyperbole (“declaring war”?). The US managed just fine with the upcoming tax rates in the past and has even managed to somehow squeak by when rates were much much higher.
Ann Coulter is spectacularly wrong about the intelligence of pulling guards.
Well known that offensive linemen score highest on the intelligence test (Wunderlich?) given to prospective NFL players at the scouting combines.
Other than that, nice put down of Keith Overbite.
As it is Steveegg the libs in Congress (and Bush signed off on it) changed the ruling on how they tax what is not tax exempt. They way it used to work is roughly the first $87k is tax exempt and then the rest would be taxed as if that was all you earned. So say you earned 100k you would get the first 87k tax exempt and then be taxed as if you earned 13k. Last year it changed so that you get the first 87k free and the other 13k is taxed at the rate that the full 100k would be taxed at.
Really?!
Do you have a link for that?
I wouldn’t put that past the socialist
parasitespredators.This demonstrates the futility of using static modeling to estimate what the Government can
plunderrake in from any given tax. No one will sit quietly while another lights a fire under their a$$. You move. The same thing happens when you raise taxes. People actaully respond.ALL of Obama’s
plunderrevenue projrctions are based on a static model. Just think of what will happen when the dynamic response proves the static model a lie?Wonder what would happen if we all called our local police departments and reported theft by the US Government…
Reading comments over at the Washington Independent link is really “enlightening”. Seems an awful lot of commenters there believe fervently that they deserve the fruits of other people’s labor.
Aren’t you being a little distractive here: you know those were different times – our economy was on the uptake and we had a Republican congress to curtail Clinton’s liberal propensity to spend, giving Wall Street the confidence it needed to engage in a bull market.
When 50 % or more of the people do not pay taxes, or worse, get checks in the mail for doing nothing, you end up with a voter calss that perpetuates a government that punishes the people that dirve the economy. Yes, we had higher marginal rates in the past but we never had this dangerous situation.
Chap, I do not understand how this Obama trend does not scare the crap out of you.
Interesting fact I read this morning: The US economy has lost more wealth under the first six weeks of Obama than any six week period under President Bush.
That makes absolute sense. You are already getting $87K tax free. Why should you then get the added benefit of absurdly low tax rates on the rest of your income?
You have to do a similar computation with respect to state taxes if you move between states and have income earned while in both.
Because it ours.
Oh please. I think most everyone agrees here income taxes are necessary at some level. Whatever you want to set the level at, there is no good reason that someone who has already cleared $87K tax free should then get the benefit of paying the same rate as some poor scmuck just clearing his first dollar. Unless you want to go with a flat tax, in which case feel free to put that first $87K back into the “taxable” category.
Yep, I think 10% federal and 2% state sounds like a good start, we can go lower from there.
I believe you are quite correct.
As far as I am aware, between WWII and the early 80s tax cut, the Social “Security” (FICA) tax was nowhere near as high as it now is, and neither were state income taxes, city income taxes, property taxes, nor other government fees, charges, taxes, etc, etc.
Anybody got links to the contrary?
Income taxes are like abortion. Once you concede the validity of his argument, the debate is over. His basic premise is flawed – not everybody agrees that income taxes are necessary. That’s on the order of global warming nuts arguing that “the debate is over” and their side is exclusively correct despite multitudinous contrary evidence and an ever larger percentage of the scientific community that disagrees.
Thta’s why I said “most everyone” and not “everyone”, sharpie. I know some here would revoke the 16th Amendment, if they could.
Why don’t you do some of your own leg work and provide a link of your own supporting your premise.
Here is the IRS link for it granite.
I do NOT agree that income taxes are necessary… because I feel that “wealth reallocation”, AKA handouts to welfare recipients, is, and should always have been, illegal under the US Constitution.
Show me where it says the Federal Government can GIVE AWAY money to people who don’t work. They produce no governmental product. They don’t file papers, or sweep the streets, or even paint curbs at military bases. They do NOTHING to earn money. Therefore, the government has not SPENT the money on a “function of government”, as they were allowed by the Constitution. Welfare is ILLEGAL!
Anyone care to prove me wrong?
BTW-Obama’s scalpel must have been pretty damn small, considering the size of his first budget! If you know any “Blue Dogs” in your place of work or neighborhood, rib them about this EVERY chance you get!
Wow! The Dow’s down 155 already this morning! What did D’Obambi say this time?
The states with no income tax simply go after the homeowner to make up the difference. I pay almost 10K dollars for one house in property tax.
Sales tax here is 8.25% as well. That’s why I’m selling all the homes I own and moving to a rural town. I hesitate to buy a house because I don’t want to pay property tax anymore, but I own one there with no mortgage.
It isn’t about saving money…it’s about not giving this government anything I don’t have to.
I know, I was just having fun. That is still currently allowed.
Good point.
Or, like prostitution:
A version of the joke:
A man approaches a beautiful woman in a bar, and without any small talk, asks her, “Will you sleep with me for a million dollars?”
The woman pauses, and after some thought says “Yes, I will.”
The man then asks, “How about for twenty dollars?”
The woman looks indignant, and says “Of course not. What kind of a woman do you think I am?”
The man replies “We just settled that. Now we’re just negotiating the price.”
Not falling for it, Chap; that’s the same old argument Dems used during the first Clinton term to guilt Americans into accepting tax increases as a necessary evil towards “good” government.
Yes, there is, it’s called personal achievement: the worker who seeks more training and education to better him/herself for the workplace, should not be penalized with a higher tax bracket and effective rate. That’s just not moral. As a nation we should rethink our tax system and decide if our tax code is to promote socialist fairness or capitalist competition. I’m for the latter. And yes, I support a flat tax. It’s been a while since I last checked, but at that time, we’d pay less.
Wait, LGM will come along with something.
The US went half its history without an income tax, and somehow made it through.
I can live with an income tax, but the Earned Income Tax Credit, giving money to poor people who do work, sounds nice in theory, but not paying income taxes seems like plenty enough in my book.
There are a few things like the interstate highway system, a strong national defense, medical care for veterans, that I am willing to pay taxes for. But I already pay property taxes for my local schools, why do we need a Department of Education? I went to college after six years in the Navy, I don’t object in principle to need based scholarships for the very poor, but Texas, and most states, have a network of state supported schools at various levels, including community and junior colleges, and I don’t know why my tax money should subsidize middle class kids going to private schools to study ethnic studies or lesbian studies or the such. There is no ‘right’ to a college education. Government subsidies for college education distorts supply and demand, and drives up the cost of college tuition.
Just one example.
I certainly don’t want my tax dollars going to study why pig manure smells poorly, overseas abortions or subsidizing ethanol, which both drives up the price of gasoline and the price of food. Railroad museums or Woodstock museums. Those don’t advance the general welfare, and waste money.
I think the last Republican Congress got voted out as much because they didn’t control spending as because of any dissatisfaction the Iraq war.
I think income taxes are here to stay, but a government that followed the Constitution, and did not use the excuse of interstate commerce to waste money and micromanage our lives, would spend less money, and need less taxes. It would borrow less/no money, and not compete with private businesses that actually generate wealth for credit.
I know, crazy talk.
No…not really, but fine. I will concede that a majority of the folks here may not want an income tax. I somehow forgot that I was dipping my toes in fantasy Ayn Rand-land.
So you would object then to the first $87K being exempt?
What I want to see is a flat rate income tax, with a reasonable earnings floor. I do not see the justice in making some people pay a higher percentage of taxes just because they earn more. Are not each equally citizens of out country? Those who earn more will pay more, but the pain should be about the same.
(As an aside, I also want a minimum tax, say $100 a year, with a suitable floor, so that a lot more citizens are saying, “That’s MY money being spent in Washington–be careful with it.”)
The good of the “Going Galt” movement is that it should reign in governmental excess in grabbing money and putting roadblocks in the way of businesses. (Reasonable regulations, which we’ve probably exceeded already, are okay.) Alas, I think the current government is more like that in Atlas Shrugged than not, and things will get worse.
Is there a link anywhere to see Michelle’s appearance?
I came here too late
On March 5th, 2009 at 10:41 am, Ed Mahmoud abu al-Kahoul said: (#53)
Yes!
For those who advocate a national sales tax, the “Fair Tax”, make sure that you also remove the 16th Amendment that allows income taxes, or we’ll be taxed even more both coming and going.
It’s not small, it’s just not very sharp. Like most of his voters.
Chapoutier – read definitions carefully.
Ignorance: lack of knowledge or education (which can be cured)
Stupid: regarded as showing lack of intelligence, perception or common sense (which can not be cured)
You seem to be well educated, so which of the two choices is left?
Isn’t that inherent to the flat tax concept, that everyone’s total income, rich and poor, is taxable at a given rate?
Which brings to mind another question: Why do Democrats oppose the flat tax? I think it’s because they know it’s more fair to earners and would mean less “enhanced revenue” for them to waste buying votes with increased social spending programs.
No. It’s because democrats don’t think its fair in the first place. 10% of someone making $30,000 is a much more significant burden than 10% for someone making $300,000. Basic necessities cost the same whether you are rich or poor.
Which only happens to be the subject of the thread. I can see why you get all offended when somebody questions your intelligence.
Chapoutier:
Yes, I agree here. Though, I think most of the realistic models of “flat tax” aren’t truly “flat.” They are just kind of flat. That is, they allow for a poverty level and then everything above that ammount is taxed flat.
That is to say, set a number like $30,000.
No taxes are paid up to $30,000. Then, any ammount above $30,000 is taxed flat.
So, if you make $40,000 and the falt tax rate is say 20%, you pay $2000 in taxes.
If you make $80,000, you pay $10,000.
$400,000 and you pay $74,000.
…and so on.
Thank you.
But, that link doesn’t appear to address the total, overall government(s) tax, fee, charges, etc burden from, say, 1945-2008.
Here’s a link that gives “tax freedom” day from 1900 to 2008 (Table 1):
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday/
txvet2:
As it has been stated in the other threads. Ayn Rand’s Objectivism IS fantasy by any reasonable person’s measure.
Yes, she had great ideas, yes, she adds something to the debate, however she was an idealist and it’s not grounded in reality.
Unless you are truly prepared to start saying legalize ALL drugs, abolish child labors laws, abolish monopoly laws, abolish the federal reserve, and so on, you have to be a bit reasonable and admit that Ayn Rand was a wee bit over the top.
#65
Rand was an atheist as well. I don’t agree with that, but I can recognize she was amazingly prescient in seeing the coming of the welfare/leech state and the attack on productive citizens.
Upton Sinclair was a socialist, and feared a right wing Hitlerian dictator, when our possible totalitarian tyrant is likely to be some form of a Marxist, but I can still see how an anti-democracy dictator could come to power in this country.
Ayn Rand over the top, maybe and maybe not but I know this:
I paid for college out of my own pocket because my parents could not afford it and were considered too rich to apply for any grants to help me. I also worked and went to school at the same time. I also ate chicken soup and boiled potatoes to make ends meet, when I had too. I completed college and over the course of several years continued to further my education to get to where I am today. In other words, I worked and I sacrificed. My mind, as it were, I use to innovate and fine tune communication networks. I actually do something that benefits others. The majority of people that use said networks cannot even begin to describe how it works, they just know it works. I ask people, from time to time, where does electricity come from? Over half point to an electrical socket.
What this really means for me is this: I have had it up to here with people that penalize those that actually produce something and have no conception of the talent behind every single product or service that they demonize. I am fed up of my children having to jump through hoops to go to College while incompetents and quota selectees are given a free pass. So is Ayn Rand over the top? I don’t think so. There are a lot more of us than you know that have knowledge that are now on strike and when that time comes when it is time to retire, if that ever happens, that knowledge will never be shared.
Keeping it simple, would you rather live in a world using the beliefs of Ayn Rand or the rules of the socialist utopia the collectivists desire?
With all the faults and warts involved I will choose the Ayn Rand version.
Ed:
Oh noes! Not an atheist! That’s horrible! *smirk*
She did have a unique and interesting perspective though, this much is true.
stillontheroad:
Kewl. The Army paid for mine.
As for your points, I am more or less in agreement. Some folks here on this website seem to think that it’s all or nothing when it comes to political viewpoints.
Being the resident “libertarian,” I don’t think so, and I often take a “Devil’s advocate” approach.
I am still a fiscal conservative, but I can recognize when Chap is speaking sense and I am happy to come to his aid in a discussion esp. since he has returned the favor on more than one occasion.
This, like employer sponsored health insurance, is the incentive for low wage earners to seek self-improvement for job advancement. And as ZA suggested, I believe Steve Forbes did set a low income minimum before the flat tax would take effect.
You appear to be contradicting me on something I didn’t say, or even imply. I don’t debate or defend Rand’s philosophy, except inasmuch as it agrees with what I have deduced myself or have gained from other (IMO reliable) sources. Nor do I defend (or attack) her on any other grounds, including religious or moral.
jjmurphy:
That is an incredibly tough question and I would say a false dichotomy. If I had to choose, I would agree with you. But it’s a bit like asking me if I would rather become a vegetarian OR only eat McDonalds for the rest of my life.
txvet2:
I was only defending Chap’s point about Rand’s philosophy being fantasy. That’s it. I am not sure what you are talking about. Admitedly I didn’t read most of the earlier comments.
zeroangel – I realize it is not a real choice. We deal in shades of gray. But I think the immediate thought you have when reading the question says a lot about your outlook on the role of government.
My point is I will choose freedom, both to succeed and fail, over servitude to the state.
txvet was just making a snide comment in response to my snide comment. No harm, no foul.
Ahh right, I see now Chap was responding to DBNinKY.
Mah bad.
So then, who exactly is espousing Ayn Rand style laissez-faire capitalism? No one?
According to CNBC, Northern Trust and US Bankcorp are giving back the TARP funds they were coerced into taking. Atlas continues to shrug.
chap your idea is the same one which brought us affirmative action in everything from education to jobs. white males, who value education, establish a work ethic, and invest in themselves are somehow keeping the black man down and so need to be punished. a flat tax makes all people pay the same percentage which incentivizes people (all people) to make more. communism, and “progressive” tax rate incentivizes the opposite. the steeper the progression, the more people drop out of production into laziness.
No they didn’t. Taxpayers did. And as a self-proclaimed libertarian, you should have paid for it yourself, or at least you should be aware of the hypocrisy of taking the money.
As far as defending the free market, if you can adjust your viewpoint to recognize that the market is nothing but the collective decisions of everybody, then you can grasp that the market can never be wrong. What distorts it and disrupts it is intervention by government. And while some minimal intervention may seem necessary, for instance to prevent fraudulent or other criminal activity, I can only point out that such intervention is frequently no more effective than the ancient admonition caveat emptor. To those who disagree, I have only two words – Bernie Madoff. Just my opinion, of course.
It does not seem to me anti-libertarian to accept payment in-kind from your employer.
Some years back after I had several good years and had made a nice sum of money, I stopped working. I used most of the money to buy land. The next year when I filed my taxes and only showed a small amount of interest income on my return, guess what happened? The governement corrected my return and sent me check for $250.00 apparently because it appeared I was poor.
txvet2 – There is nothing wrong with accepting part of your pay package when it is education. How is it hypocrital to accept that?
Comment based only on the apparent perception implicit in his/her comment, not on the right or wrong of in-kind payments. I’m receiving both deferred and in-kind compensation from the government too, but I know where it comes from, and anyway I’m not a libertarian either. Of course you’d be right to argue that such deferred compensation is specified in the original contract of employment and as such is not anti-libertarian. And then I could make the counter-argument that working for the government in the first place is anti-libertarian. We could go on all day, but we won’t, because it’s about 80 degrees outside, and I’m gonna go lay in the sun.
txvet2:
First, what chap said.
Second, I think I have said it before, but I am a “libertarian” (lower case ‘l’) as opposed to a “Libertarian” (capital ‘L’); there is a reason I use it in quotes. However, I should think that should be obvious from my posts basically calling Rand’s ideas fantasy. I am not, after all, the breed of “libertarian” that will straight-faced argue for anarchy and the idea that private security is better across the board than military or police. I don’t think you are suggesting that the military should be privatized, either.
This is precisely why the “market” isn’t ALWAYS right. The “invisible hand” assumes consumers with unlimited resources and perfect judgment.
If you seriously and honestly think that all government intervention is bad (I would agree that MOST or too much is) then you are left to explain what is bad about (for example) monopoly laws, drug laws, and child labor laws. None of these are “fraudulent” and are only “criminal” in the sense that they are illegal.
I think even hard-core libertarians recognize the military as a legitimate function of government. After that, you get into anarchists.
This is the meanest thing you have ever written.
Yes, this is what I was driving at. I do not use the word “Libertarian” to mean “fundamentalist Libertarian bordering on Anarchist.” Most rational “libertarians” don’t use it that way either.
Obama has invented all these non traditional un-American symbols for things in his own image.
The Institute of Science is real!
I believe he is suppressing our economy on purpose in order to weaken us.
He wants us all to sign over Reardon Metal!
I think he believes in global governance, and that he is narcissistic, believes he can bring on worldwide socialism, and does not like capitalism being our economic system.
His plans require our participation of our own self destruction, just as in Atlas Shrugged.
I would follow John Gault’s example as an American.
Obama is playing the role of the “looters” to perfection!
Sabotage of our sovereignty?
I used to beat myself up for quitting my job last Spring because I felt guilty about not contributing to my family (plus the job helped fund my IRA). Yet, I hated this job (it was a temp job anyway) where I felt little job satisfaction and exploited because the “client” decided to renege on their promise of permanently employing me.
I had never quit a job in my life for another reason other than an impending military move. Yet, I saw how little this job actually did for me in terms of tax season (in some instances I owed at tax time) or job satisfaction.
If anybody thinks that the Going Galt phenomenon is anything new, talk to a military spouse and they’ll tell you how little respect they get from the at-large civilian community. There is rampant job discrimination in industries such as military contracting as well as education where there is such an overhyped fear of transients it’s ridiculous.
My point is there are many military spouses who went Galt a long time ago, choosing to focus on their families, saving money, and homeschooling their kids, rather than pursue careers that in many respects devalued them as a person, added to their stress level, and overall didn’t make sense economically if they were doing okay with just the military member’s salary and still making it.
I’m happy to see that perhaps others are catching on to the rip-off that is our tax system and the need for reform. If you’ve already planned wisely, you don’t need to be a working stiff to be happy and prosperous. I feel for the others who’ve lost big time (and I’m one of those folks) in either investments or housing or both.
The freaking federal government isn’t gonna save you when they’re ripping you off and devaluing your labor for the sake of the “less fortunate.”