The Objective Standard Blog
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Great Producers Deserve Our Gratitude, Not Obama’s Tax Hikes
In his State of the Union address, Barack Obama said the wealthy need to pay higher taxes in order to pay their “fair share.”
As Newt Gingrich told Newsmax, Obama’s plan apparently would entail doubling the capital gains tax to 30 percent, something Gingrich justifiably characterizes as the “most destructive anti-jobs proposal by a president in my lifetime.” (The tax hike would be on top of the double taxation already applied to capital gains.)
But Obama’s proposed tax hikes are not merely economically destructive, they are the antithesis of actual fairness. Toward genuine fairness, a good first step would be to dramatically cut taxes on those who produce enormous wealth. Such producers earn their money by creating the technologies, products, jobs, and effective business practices that keep us alive and help us flourish. They deserve to use their resources as they judge best rather than see their earnings looted by federal politicians and the special-interest groups that many of those politicians serve. And yet, rather than applaud the giants of industry whose productivity enhances our lives in myriad ways, federal politicians punish them with insanely high taxes. (James Pethokoukis reviews relative tax burdens for the American Enterprise Institute, and I discuss the matter in a piece for Pajamas Media.)
To puff up his claim that forcing the wealthy to pay higher taxes is somehow more “fair,” Obama presumes that their wealth automatically belongs to the federal government. If politicians allow wealthy producers to keep more of the money they earn, he argued, then that is a “special tax subsidy,” no different than if the government hands the wealthy the money that somebody else earned.
The federal government should forcibly seize more of the earnings of the wealthy, Obama argued, in order to give that money to someone else, whether “a senior on a fixed income; or a student trying to get through school; or a family trying to make ends meet.” Elsewhere in his speech Obama suggested that politically-connected parasites posing as businessmen also deserve more corporate welfare. But, regardless of which interest groups win the federal payouts, Obama’s principle is the same: the wealth of the great producers should be forcibly confiscated and turned over to those who did not produce it but allegedly need it or profess to need it.
In other words, one’s “unalienable rights” to one’s “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” must make way for the collectivist doctrine: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
Fairness does not mean letting the federal government forcibly confiscate more of the wealth of those who produce the goods, services, businesses, and jobs on which our lives depend. It means limiting the government to the protection of each person’s rights to his property and earnings, whether that person earns ten thousand dollars every year or ten billion.
Related:
- To Give Americans a “Fair Shot,” Obama Should Stop Violating Our Rights
- The Justice of Income Inequality Under Capitalism
Image: Public Domain
Posted in: Business and Economics, Presidential Candidates
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Mitch Daniels: Business is “One of the Noblest of Human Pursuits”
In the GOP’s response speech to President Obama’s State of the Union, Mitch Daniels said, “Contrary to the president’s constant disparagement of people in business, it’s one of the noblest of human pursuits.”
Though Daniels’ speech is a mixed bag, his identification of the nobility of business is spot on and is a refreshing contrast to Obama’s anti-business agenda. Businessmen are productive dynamos who trade value for value to earn their wealth. Steve Jobs, John Allison, Bill Gates, Jonathan Hoenig, and other businessmen deserve to be praised for pursuing their rational self-interest and for creating goods and services that further their lives and, consequently, the lives of those who trade with them.
Republican leaders desperately need to recognize and embrace the moral nature of business. And they need to work to protect the individual rights of businessmen and unshackle producers from regulations and discriminatory taxation.
Related:
Image: Wikimedia Commons
Posted in: Business and Economics, Individual Rights and Law, Philosophy
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Double-Taxation Means Double Injustice for Romney
Why do the same people who continually cry that “corporations aren’t people” want to tax them as though they were? Corporations are voluntary organizations of individuals. The law should protect the rights of each individual (including the right to speak as part of a group), not impose double burdens on individuals who happen to participate in corporations. Yet today’s tax code punishes individuals who invest in corporations twice: once at the corporate level and once at the individual level.
Thus, far from getting off easy on his taxes, Mitt Romney suffers unjust double taxation. John Berlau and Trey Kovacs explain this important context in an article for the Wall Street Journal. They write, “Our tax code layers taxation of dividends and capital gains on top of a top corporate tax rate of 35%,” and such “double taxation brings the effective tax rate on investment income to as much as 44.75%.”
At least Romney wants to limit the corporate income tax rate to 25 percent. But he should go much further and call for the abolition of all corporate taxes with a commensurate cut in federal spending. Not only would that end this injustice of double taxation, it would protect the rights of corporations to use their resources to create wealth, profits, and employment.
Romney’s critics are right about one thing: It is grotesquely unfair to tax individuals who earn less an even greater proportion of their income. Thus, as a good first step tax rates for all individuals should be reduced to 15 percent or less. Forcing some people to hand over a third or more of their earnings to the politicians and bureaucrats of the federal government is a blatant violation of their rights.
Related:
- Romney Should Call for Property Rights and Lower Taxes for Everyone
- To Protect Rights, Phase Out Payroll Tax Completely
Image: Creative Commons by Brian Rawson-Ketchum via Wikipedia
Posted in: Business and Economics, Presidential Candidates
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
To Give Americans a “Fair Shot,” Obama Should Stop Violating Our Rights
In his State of the Union address, President Obama said, “We can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.” If only he had the slightest clue what constitutes fairness and equality under the law.
A proper government gives people a “fair shot” by protecting their rights to produce, trade freely with others, use the fruits of their labor as they deem best, and guide their own lives in accordance with their own rational judgment. A proper government protects people’s rights to their own wealth and property, enforces chosen obligations defined by freely entered contracts, and prevents people from forcibly confiscating the “share” of others. And a proper government protects free trade under laws that protect individual rights.
Obama proposes policies with opposite goals and outcomes.
Rather than slash oppressive taxes that drive businesses overseas, Obama wants to impose new oppressive taxes on companies that do businesses elsewhere.
Rather than protect the equal rights of all business operators, Obama calls for corporate welfare for politically-favored businesses (such as Solyndra).
Rather than respect the rights of parents to fund the educational opportunities that best meet the needs of their children, Obama wants more federal controls of education.
Rather than lower tax rates across the board, Obama calls for discriminatory taxes that favor the politically connected.
Rather than protect the rights of individuals and companies to buy goods from their suppliers of choice, Obama wants to establish a “Trade Enforcement Unit” to restrict free trade.
Rather than protect the rights of consumers to purchase the energy that best suits their needs, Obama wants to play favorites with federal mandates.
Rather than seriously restrain federal spending, Obama is content to continue many of the policies that have contributed mightily to the nation’s $15 trillion debt.
There is nothing fair about Obama’s blatant violations of individual rights.
True, Obama offered a few words about protecting property rights, preventing fraud, and slightly loosening the federal shackles on domestic energy production. But such comments seem calculated to blur the difference between rights-protecting behavior and rights-violating behavior by the government, and Obama’s policies clearly favor the latter.
Moreover, Obama blamed the free market for the failures of the government, as with the mortgage meltdown caused by the federal government’s easy-money policies, even as he credited politicians and bureaucrats for the astounding achievements of industrialists, as with hydraulic fracturing in the production of oil and gas (see, for instance, the story of producer George Mitchell).
A nation of prosperous individuals depends on governmental policies that consistently protect individual rights. Unfortunately, many of Obama’s policies threaten to more seriously undermine rights.
Related:
Image: Ben Stanfield via Wikipedia
Posted in: Individual Rights and Law, Presidential Candidates
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Romney Should Call for Property Rights and Lower Taxes for Everyone
Under pressure, Mitt Romney released some of his tax information for 2010. Some of his remarks hit the right notes regarding the importance of economic liberty, but he missed an opportunity to make the case for property rights and lower taxes for all.
To castigate a man for not paying more taxes than the law requires him to pay is indecent. And to his credit, Romney told the Wall Street Journal: “I pay all the taxes that are legally required, not a dollar more.”
The Journal reports that Romney earned $21.7 million and paid $3 million in federal taxes. Further, notes the paper, much of Romney’s income came from investments, and given the “preferential rate for investment income” he paid “an effective rate of around 15%,” or “considerably less than the top rate of 35% levied on regular salary income.”
Unfortunately, Romney told the Journal, “I’m proud of the fact that I pay a lot of taxes.”
What he should say is this: “I’m proud of the fact that I earned significant wealth. The fact that some people pay an even higher percentage of their earnings to the federal government means that their right to dispose of their earnings as they see fit is violated that much more than mine. We should bring everyone’s effective tax rate down to a maximum of 15 percent and cut federal spending proportionately. That would be a good start.”
Related:
- The American Right, the Purpose of Government, and the Future of Liberty
- Santorum Stands for Big Government because He Stands for Collectivism
Image: Gage Skidmore
Posted in: Business and Economics
Monday, January 23, 2012
Obama’s “Tough Talk” Regarding Syria’s Membership in UNESCO Body is Immorally Inadequate
Fox News reports that “the Obama administration has sent a letter to UNESCO’s executive board calling on Syria to be removed from the so called Committee on Conventions and Recommendations which deals with human rights.” But President Obama’s request is immorally inadequate. Consider just a few of the Syrian regime’s activities of late.
The Telegraph reports that “Children appear to have been singled out for abuse, with some being tortured ‘to death’ in custody,” by the Syrian regime. The Syrian dictatorship recently murdered at least 256 children; its thugs recently gang-raped an eleven-year-old boy; and they recently shot a two-year old girl to stop her from “grow[ing] into a demonstrator.”
The Guardian reports—citing an Amnesty International paper—that the Syrian regime has turned hospitals into “instruments of repression;” torturing and beating patients, while imprisoning doctors accused of aiding protesters. One patient, Ahmed, awoke from surgery surrounded by seven or eight thugs from the regime, a witness recounts, “He opened his eyes and said: ‘Where am I?’ They all suddenly jumped on him and started beating and hitting him . . . [shouting] ‘You pig, you want freedom, eh?’”
Reuters citing the UN—the body that houses UNESCO—reports that “more than 5,000 people have been killed by the security forces since an anti-Assad revolt began in March [2011].”
The Syrian regime has been torturing people in hospitals, killing, raping and torturing children, and killing thousands of protesters who oppose the Syrian tyranny. These horrors alone—even aside from Syria’s alliance with the Iranian theocracy and their support of terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah—should have made any person or government shriek in horror in being associated with such evil.
That any civilized nation is a member of UNESCO is an outrageous sanction of this evil regime. The United States should not merely call for Syria to be removed from the Committee on Conventions and Recommendations; it should immediately remove itself from UNESCO, condemn all states that remain involved with it—and do the same with the tyrant’s haven known as the UN.
Related:
- An Interview with John R. Bolton on the Proper Role of Government
- U.N. Pays Tribute to Communist Butcher
- A Pledge for GOP Presidential Contenders: Repudiate the U.N. Wholesale
- UNESCO Embraces PLO Terrorists
Image: Wikipedia Commons
Posted in: Foreign Policy and War, Individual Rights and Law
Sunday, January 22, 2012
The Immorality of a “Reasonable Profits Board”
A recent bill before the U.S. House of Representatives, known as the “Gas Price Spike Act” (HR 3784) aims to create a body known as the “Reasonable Profits Board.” The Board’s mission would be to oversee the profits generated by businesses in the fossil fuel industry, to determine whether those profits are “reasonable” and, if not, to levy a windfall profits tax. Such a Board would plainly violate the rights of the owners and managers of oil and gas companies by overriding their judgment about how to allocate their resources and run their businesses, and by subordinating their judgment to the whims of government bureaucrats.
What would the Board regard as a reasonable profit? The text of HR 3784 tells us: “The term ‘reasonable profit’ means the amount determined by the Reasonable Profits Board to be a reasonable profit.” This is patently circular and arbitrary.
Where does the government propose to allocate the “unreasonable” portion of the businesses’ profits? Supporters of the bill want to use the money to fund government-sponsored “clean energy initiatives,” to reduce fares for publicly funded mass-transit, and, in the words of Rep. Kucinich, to finance “forward-thinking transportation alternatives.” Since two of the six representatives sponsoring the bill are from California, namely Bob Filner and Lynn Woolsey, both of whom advocate more government involvement in transportation, including high-speed rails, one may reasonably conclude that the “forward-thinking transportation alternatives” would include boondoggles such as the project to build a high-speed rail linking San Diego to San Francisco, the projected cost of which is now close to $100 billion. Further, nothing in the bill limits the government from using the businesses’ “unreasonable” profits on pet projects like Solyndra and Evergreen Solar.
As if all that weren’t enough to damn the bill, could anyone possibly believe that the power of a “Reasonable Profits Board,” once created, would remain limited to its initial intentions? Surely its power would soon extend into other industries, such as banking when the next financial crisis hits or the internet when bureaucrats determine that Google and company have “unreasonable” profits too.
In short, HR 3784 would violate the rights of oil and gas companies by forcing them to subsidize their otherwise incapable “competitors” and politicians’ pet projects, and it would set the stage for more of the same in other industries. In a word, it would be immoral.
HR 3784 and the very notion of a Reasonable Profits Board should be cast into the sewer, where it belongs.
Related:
- The American Right, the Purpose of Government, and the Future of Liberty
- Vindicating Capitalism: The Real History of the Standard Oil Company
Image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bureaucrats_at_work.jpg
Posted in: Business and Economics, Individual Rights and Law
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Back-Issue Blowout—Save 50%
Now through January 31, you can buy available print-edition back issues of TOS at 50% off the regular price.
Whether you want to fill out your personal TOS collection, or give copies to friends, or hoard some for trading when the dollar goes south, now is the time to buy!
Posted in: Announcements
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Did God Help the Patriots Beat the Broncos?
Christians offering prayers for a victory for Tim Tebow and the Broncos had exactly the same effect as witches holding a seance for Tom Brady and the Patriots: none. Football games are won or lost based on the skill and intensity of the players and the quality of the coaching. As I wrote previously, crediting a supernatural being for a team’s success is an injustice to the members of that team who put so much into a game.
Yet, oddly, some continue to suggest that God may influence the outcome of football games. For example, a letter to the Denver Post, referring specifically to the outcome of sporting matches, suggests, “God and Tim Tebow are working together in wonderful and mysterious ways.” (The letter was written without any apparent hint of sarcasm; whatever the author’s intention, some people embrace its sentiment.)
The most glaring problem with such claims is that there is no evidence that a “God” exists, much less that such a being plays a direct role in human affairs.
A secondary problem with claims of supernatural intervention is that they are senseless even on their own terms. A God who would get involved in sporting matches would be even more petty than those fans who pray for such divine intervention. Further, as another letter to the Denver Post asks, why would God choose “to intervene in trivial sports contests and not [prevent] famine and genocide in Africa, or the murder of protesters in Syria, etc.?” This raises the issue formally known as the “problem of evil”: Why would a God with unlimited power to stop human suffering decline to do so?
Those who claim divine intervention in sports and daily life ignore the actual and obvious causes of human events: the willed actions of people and the nature of the things on which they act. A football crosses a goal line because men run it, kick it, or throw it over the line, not because God wills it to cross the line.
Neither God, nor the stars, nor some magical incantation helped the Patriots destroy the Broncos. They did it on their own.
Image: Jeffrey Beall via Wikipedia
Posted in: Religion
Saturday, January 14, 2012
High Time to End the Iranian Regime
The United States government is stepping up its efforts to increase sanctions on Iran in order to impede the Islamist regime’s development of nuclear weapons. These latest efforts, however, ignore how pressing this matter really is.
The Iranian regime has killed U.S troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, has long sponsored terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, has slaughtered its own citizenry, and continually calls for “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.”
That such a regime exists—even aside from its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons—should have moved the United States and its allies to obliterate the Iranian theocracy long ago. That the regime is actively seeking nuclear weapons clearly heightens the urgency.
Related:
- Interview with Reza Kahlili, an Ex-CIA Spy Embedded in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards
- “No Substitute for Victory” The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism
- An Interview with John R. Bolton on the Proper Role of Government
- The Iranian and Saudi Regimes Must Go
Image: Wikipedia Commons
Posted in: Foreign Policy and War, Religion
TOS Updates & Commentary
Sign up to receive TOS updates & commentary.
Featured Posts
- Who Deserves Credit for Tebow’s 316 Yards?
- Santorum Stands for Big Government because He Stands for Collectivism
- When Ayn Rand Meets Patrick Henry
- The Justice of Income Inequality Under Capitalism
- The Beauty of Ayn Rand's Ethics
Blog Archive
Blog Topics
- Announcements (165)
- Ayn Rand and Objectivism (106)
- Business and Economics (228)
- Education (57)
- Environmentalism (54)
- Events (100)
- Foreign Policy and War (215)
- Health Care (81)
- History (55)
- Individual Rights and Law (344)
- Philosophy (138)
- Presidential Candidates (14)
- Psychology (9)
- Religion (130)
- Science and Technology (67)
- The Arts (39)
- Week in Review (12)
Ideas presented in posts on TOS Blog are those of the authors of the posts and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Objective Standard. TOS Blog is powered by WordPress.
