Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Different worlds

"...the government is pitching in ... for Romney's and other rich people's presidential runs." (because the money spent is lost to the inheritance tax.)
Stop right there. The only way this makes sense is if all the money belongs to the government and they just let us use it for a while. Which, I guess, sums up the view of the redistributionists.
This is the same class-warfare rhetoric that is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me. I will about to this, talking to me about "fair shares" or "equality" of anything in the real world, whether it be taxes, consumption, duties, &c, is a good way to get me to tune you out.
Games are fair, life is not. In certain sports, there is the concept of the "handicap," where some more-skilled contestants are artificially penalized, some less-skilled contestants are artificially enhanced, or a combination of both, either directly on the field or through score manipulation afterwards. In effect, the better you do, the heavier you are penalized. This works for sports because the participants are volunteers who want to compete on a level playing field. That doesn't make it applicable for real life. Sports are zero-sum games, for every winner there is a corresponding loser. But we've known since at least Adam Smith that the real world is not a zero-sum game, that all sides in a transaction can "win." We need laws and governments to provide for punishing frauds, and enforcing contracts (the civil and criminal court system). They also enable common defense (armies for external defense and the police and criminal court system for internal defense) and facilitate trade.  But beyond that, government should not be in the business of "fairness."


  1. Sooo... Wait.

    If I read this correctly, the writer is saying that it's unfair for Romney to own a great deal of property, and have the ability to sell that property for income, but to not sell it and not be taxed on the income he could be generating but isn't. And this should make my "blood boil."

    Even laying aside the insanity of saying that to spend your money is unfair because it deprives government of inheritance taxes, my reading above is so crazy I feel like I must be misunderstanding the writer. Am I missing something?

  2. As near as I can tell, doing anything to reduce the maximum tax burden on the part of a right-wing-whackjob-plutocrat is "cheating the government."


Please keep it civil