Redistribution may not be needed

Redistribution is a statist method of taking from one individual (under the threat of violence) and giving what was taken to another individual who is supposedly in poverty. The practice is antithesis to everything libertarian.redistribution_is_not_fairness_its_theft

Poverty can be avoided in many cases by following these steps:

  1. Complete high school and if possible, obtain further career training
  2. Do not have a child out of wedlock
  3. After completing your education or career training, work full-time at your career
  4. Obey all statist laws even if you disagree with them to remain non-incarcerated

Following these simple tenets will help keep most individuals out of poverty thus lessen  the need for the unjust practice of income redistribution.

 

How to Really Fix America

There are several simple modifications to American policy and to our US Constitution that would quickly set America on a path to prosperity and happiness.  They include:

  1. End America’s role as the world’s policeman  – follow the current Constitution’s prescriptions on the use of our military
  2. Abolish the IRS and replace it with a fee based system of funding for only Constitutionally defined activities the federal government can participate in
  3. Abolish all non-Constitutionally defined government activities with an all encompassing amendment to the US Constitution i.e. disbands cabinet roles such as HHS and Department of Education and governmental agencies such as as the EPA. This action will force the end of federal programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc
  4. Rollback all federal laws for victimless crime
  5. Strengthen federal laws on property rights, citizen on citizen violence, and fraud and coercion
  6. Provide each student under the age of 18 in America with uniform financial stipend that can be used for education and training at the institution of their parents’ choice
  7. Add an amendment to the US Constitution forbidding an income tax or ending the fiscal year without a balanced budget
  8. Stop all federal surveillance unless sanctioned by the terms in the 4th amendment to the US Constitution
  9. Reform immigration to include work permits, simple path to permanent residence,  and add an amendment to the US Constitution forbidding of federal aid to new arrivals
  10. Abolish the Federal Reserve and have legislative control over the current which would be backed by gold and other non-perishable assets

 

The results of these policies would be:

  1. Reduction in cost of national defense and a more popular America throughout the world
  2. Reduction in the cost of collecting funds for the federal government and elimination of corruption caused by the current tax code
  3. Reduction in the cost of government and the ability of citizenry to chose to localize services and the state and municipal level. There would now be a separation of government and business and government and healthcare, etc..
  4. Reduction in incarceration rates and the cost of administering justice with America
  5. Would offer American’s a more equitable and constitutionally sanctioned justice system
  6. Education is critical to a free society so a free parental choice based primary and secondary education would be provided to all students at a baseline level. The funding would come at the federal level from fees collected from selling, renting federal assets
  7. Keeps economic prosperity and assures continued economic justice
  8. Eliminates “Big Brother” for our lives
  9. Stops illegal immigration and assures America access to the world’s best and brightest
  10. Allows a sound money policy and uses market forces to guide interest rates and subsequent investments

 

Why we lose our property

One of the most sacrosanct beliefs in a libertarian society is the free right to own property. In the most fundamental sense, this property includes personal possessions such as land, homes, automobiles, and other sundry valuables accumulated over time by an individual or family unit.  In almost in all cases, this private property is obtained from the fruits of ones’ labor; from participation in free market transactions whether from traditional manufacturing – selling of products, by delivering services and expert advice to someone willing to freely purchase them, or even by speculatively investing where one’s original investment is smaller than the final price obtained when the investment is sold.

How much fruit one obtains in a free society is often distributed unequally within the society and is dependent on a multitude of factors including hard work, skill, education, knowledge, experience, and even plain luck.

For some reason, statists despise the inequality of free markets and the fact that someone can be very successful and accumulate significant wealth by conducting free market commence.  To combat this undesirable feature of a capitalist society,  statists have created two large classes of the populace who can be ‘fed’ via the taxation or theft from all wage earners, even those who work within the statist system.  (Very strange, they give money to someone who works for the state and then tax them to pay for their and other government employees’ wages)

The first class to receive the benefits of redistribution of wealth are government employees. Now mind you, many of these employees provide value to society but given their relegation to being employed by the state instead of the private sector they become a protected class that must be supported by the forcible confiscation of wealth (fruits of one’s labor) from workers.

According to the census bureau’s Government Employment and Payroll measure, the number of federal, state, and local civilian government employees and their gross monthly payroll for March of the survey year can be found at. Survey of Public Employment and Payroll website >>

The number within this class is large and as of March of 2015, there are 14,425,359 people drawing wages via the forced taxation of private property.

The other class of people are those who are made dependent on the state for some portion of their existence.  These people receive the fruits of someone’s labor via programs like:

  • Medicaid
  • Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
  • Housing Assistance
  • Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
  • Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
  • General Assistance (GA)

“Approximately 52.2 million (or 21.3 percent) people in the U.S. participated in major means-tested government assistance programs each month in 2012, according to a U.S. Census Bureau report. “

One final thought to ponder. Do you think these two protected classes (Government employees and people receiving means tested benefits) will ever support changes to our statist system?

 

 

An Outstanding Assessment

A very insightful piece from Simon Black.  I cannot add to this but to say, Mr. Black is spot on with his assessment of Americans today.

https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/new-poll-record-number-of-americans-want-more-government-in-their-lives-21388/?inf_contact_key=bca43013ae3658dd22297fe0e5837999bd3b2e4d6f6b2a81a9955af064c21ad9

April 24, 2017
Sovereign Valley Farm, Chile

In a poll conducted a few days ago by NBC News / Wall Street Journal, a record 57% of Americans responded that they want MORE government in their lives, and that the government should be doing more to solve people’s problems.

That’s the highest percentage since they started asking this question in 1995.

In fact, 57% is nearly double what people responded in the mid-90s.

Furthermore, the number of Americans who feel the opposite, i.e. responded that the government is doing too many things that should be left to private businesses and individuals, fell to a near record-low 39%.  

Bottom line: people want more government.

It’s hard to even know where to begin with this.

First- more government is nearly an impossibility.

As I’ve written several times in the past, the US federal government already spends almost all of its tax revenue on mandatory entitlements like Social Security, and interest on the debt.

They could literally cut nearly everything we think of as government– national parks, Homeland Security, even the IRS– and still not make a dent in paying down the national debt.

According to the US government’s own financial statements, their net operating loss in 2016 was an unbelievable $1.05 TRILLION.

Think about that– they lost more than a trillion dollars in a completely unremarkable year.

They weren’t waging world war, funding a major infrastructure project, or dealing with an economic crisis.

It was just business as usual. And they STILL lost over a trillion dollars.

More government is going to cost even more money that they don’t have… which means even more debt and even more pain in the future.

The usual refrain is to pay for more government programs by raising taxes on the rich, or big corporations, or whoever the evil villain du jour is.

Anyone who thinks this actually works needs to study history.

Simply put, RAISING TAXES DOES NOT RAISE TAX REVENUE.

I wish every Bernie Sanders voter could understand this very simple fact:

Since the end of World War II, US federal government tax revenue as a percentage of GDP has been nearly constant at 17%.

In other words, while the actual dollar amount of tax revenue goes up every year due to inflation and economic expansion, the government’s slice of the total economic pie is 17%.

Yet during the previous eight decades, actual -tax rates- have been all over the board– sometimes rates were higher, sometimes rates were lower.

Back in 1963, for example, the highest marginal tax rate on individuals exceeded an unbelievable 90%.

I’m sure there are plenty of Americans who would love to see the wealthiest citizens paying 90% again.

Yet in 1963, even with rates that high, the total amount of tax revenue that the US government collected was 16.7% of GDP.

In 1988 when the highest tax rate was slashed to just 28% under Ronald Reagan, total tax revenue 17.3% of GDP.
 
It doesn’t matter if tax rates were high or low– the actual tax revenue that the government collects stays constant at around 17% of GDP.

This raises a point that these socialists never seem to understand:

If the government’s slice of the pie never seems to change no matter how high or how low tax rates are, shouldn’t they focus on making the pie bigger?

Duh.

And it seems intuitive that higher taxes obstruct economic growth (i.e. make the pie smaller) because there’s less money in people’s pockets to spend and invest.

Then, of course, we have to touch on the issue of competence.

It’s absurd to want a government that has a nearly interminable track record of overreach, waste, and failure, to be even MORE involved in people’s lives.

We’re talking about the same institution that wastes taxpayer money to study monkeys on treadmills…

… or spent $1 billion to destroy $16 billion worth of perfectly good ammunition…

… or $2 billion to build a website.
 
It’s extraordinary that these people are already in charge of educating our children, regulating our savings, and now our medical care.

It’s even more appalling that given such dismal performance people want more.

As the old saying goes, the classic definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

A final point I’ll mention is that it’s concerning to see people in the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave expect the government to solve their problems.

What ever happened to self-reliance? The pioneering spirit? Good ole’ American can-do ingenuity?

In truth there are countless ways for a motivated person to solve problems. Or at least to make forward progress.

For example, to all these kids that have their hands out demanding free university education, I always ask the same questions:

How many books did you read in the last twelve months?

How many FREE online courses from Harvard and MIT did you take?

Are you actually doing anything to help yourself? Or are you just whining on social media about how no one is giving you anything for free?

America was founded as a place where people take responsibility for themselves.

But this now seems to be an outdated, minority view.

The Land of the Free is truly becoming the Land of Getting Free Stuff.

 

Until tomorrow,

Simon Black

Founder, SovereignMan.com

Basic economic laws should not be thwarted

In the United States of America, the state continues to deploy failed policies that violate basic economic principles to the detriment of the entire society it seeks to control.   This failure can be seen in America’s Welfare State and progressive income tax program. The former subsidizes individual actions and life styles that can contribute to poverty and the later discourages income and wealth generation. Simply put, basic praxeology shows us when you subsidize something you will get more of it. Tax and regulate something you get less of it.

Since the amalgamation of the Revenue Act of 1916 and FDR’s New Deal, (in which the state used taxation, targeted subsidization, and regulation in an attempt to alleviate and or mitigate its definition of poverty among its citizens), the state began to extremely violate the aforementioned basic principles of human behavior.

In FDR’s “First New Deal” (1933–34), many programs were instituted using state subsidies to pay people who did not work and create new regulations for the banking and industrial sector which increased their moral hazard in an attempt to combat the impact and causes of the Great Depression.

FDR’s “Second New Deal” (1935–38) went further and fully institutionalized state involvement in the nation’s personal behavior in an attempt to address the effects of the ongoing economic crisis.  Programs such as Social Security and the Fair Labor Standards Act would change America forever.

The state, in its infinite wisdom, seeing less than satisfactory results from FDR’s New Deal, thirty years later further increased its involvement in Americans’ personal lives with new programs, subsidies, and taxes during LBJ’s Great Society.

Our aim is not only to relieve the symptom of poverty, but to cure it and, above all, to prevent it. No single piece of legislation, however, is going to suffice.”
– President Lyndon Johnson, 1964 State of the Union Address

Recently, according to the 2014 House Budget Committee Report, The War on Poverty: 50 Years Later the state’s return on investment has been less than satisfactory.  Below are some conclusions from the report showing failure of the state to eliminate poverty by not understanding basic human behavior:

The War on Poverty at a Glance
Despite trillions of dollars in spending, poverty is widespread:
• In 1965, the poverty rate was 17.3 percent. In 2012, it was 15 percent.
• Over the past three years, “deep poverty” has reached its highest level on record.
• About 21.8 percent of children live below the poverty line.1
In can be no surprise the state has failed to eliminate poverty if one understands the basics tenets of human behavior and the fundamental principles of economics.   The state’s policy violates them. Government programs targeted at poverty reduction/elimination encourage more poverty by encouraging a person to continue their current situation of being in poverty — receive payments and subsidies for having lower income, receive payments and subsidies for not working, receive payments and subsidies for having more dependents, receive payments and subsides for not completing high school, receive payments and subsides for not living a healthy lifestyle, etcetera.
The state also discourages work and thus wealth generation with its onerous job killing regulations which make it more costly for employers and entrepreneurs to create jobs and thus new wealth.
Additionally, the progressive tax system reduces the incentive to generate new wealth as its marginal income tax rates and capital gains taxes punish those who generate more earned income and investment generated wealth.
The state could easily rectify the current situation by eliminating all subsidies to individuals and corporations and stop taxing income and wealth.
1. “War on Poverty.” Http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/war_on_poverty.pdf. United States House of Representatives , 3 Mar. 2014. Web. 8 Apr. 2017.

Can anyone dispute these statements?

 Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University and well known liberty loving commentator who has long spoke of the injustice of taxation and links it to state sponsored robbery.  His view can be validated in the following statement.

“Government income redistribution programs produce the same result as theft. In fact, that’s what a thief does; he redistributes income. The difference between government and thievery is mostly a matter of legality.”

Can anyone argue that one does not pay taxes under threat of punishment by the federal government?  Imagine, if you refused to pay the state. At best, you would be fined and at worst, you would be both fined and jailed.

Thomas Sowell, another brilliant economist and liberty loving commentator also spoke of the questionable action by the state when they take the fruits of labor from one hard-working individual and give it to another.  https://i1.wp.com/mccluresmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/thomas-sowell-mcclures-magazine-659x412.jpg

“What do you call it when someone steals someone else’s money secretly? Theft. What do you call it when someone takes someone else’s money openly by force? Robbery. What do you call it when a politician takes someone else’s money in taxes and gives it to someone who is more likely to vote for him? Social Justice”.

Are there any flaws in Williams’ or Sowell’s theses?

Getting off of the dole is not popular

An article on ZeroHedge titled, It Was A Pretty Disturbing Briefing”: Why State Governors Suddenly Got Cold Feet About Obamacare Repeal spoke about the difficulty the states see in the new administration’s efforts to repeal Obamacare. The crux of the problem is the statists’ fear of the wrath of people who lose government funded healthcare and the vast amount of federal money in play for the states to quickly repeal and/or replace Obamacare. The article makes it clear as shown in the quote below; governors fear the back lash from those forced off of the dole and of the loss of federal funding for their Medicaid programs if changes are made to Obamacare.

“Tens of thousands who would not be able to afford their coverage and would lose their coverage,” Democratic Governor Jay Inslee of Washington said after the closed-door meeting. “It was a pretty disturbing briefing.”

In non-statist speech, the governor of Washington was simply saying that taking these people off of the public dole would be politically untenable  – the MSM would have a field day reporting how evil politicians are hurting Americans and how irresponsible governors are for ever growing state budget deficits.

I suspect other governors beyond Inslee, both Democratic and Republican, feel the same as they are more concerned with keeping their positions of power by keeping everyone happy rather than face the truth of the debt ridden situation Obamacare places America’s finances into.  This is not a right vs. left issue but one of survival of statist politicians. From the same article:

On Friday, Kasich called House Republicans’ initial plans to replace the health-care law “inadequate.” Kasich, a former Republican presidential candidate, didn’t go into details during brief remarks to reporters after a meeting Friday with President Donald Trump. “To me, it’s not acceptable,” Kasich said. The governor, who opened Ohio’s Medicaid program to more low-income people under Obamacare, has advocated maintaining the Medicaid expansion. He has said the income limit for the program should be lower.

Whether one believes it or not, once the ink was dry on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) the die was cast. With Obamacare as the first step, America is heading towards socialized medicine and likely financial Armageddon.  The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in their March 2016 report shows this in the large and growing expenditures the federal government is making to support ACA.1

The federal government subsidizes health insurance for most Americans through a variety of federal programs and tax preferences. In 2016, those subsidies for people under age 65 will total more than $600 billion, the Congressional Budget Office and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate. (The government also bears significant costs for health insurance for people 65 or older, mostly through Medicare and Medicaid).

Like the metaphor about the frog in boiling water, Obamacare is mechanism the statists are using to control America’s healthcare system.

  1. Federal Subsidies for Health Insurance Coverage for People Under Age 65: 2016 to 2026. Rep. Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office, 2016. Print.