Imagine a state with only three people: Al, Bo, and Cy. Each person pays $4 in annual taxes, so the government collects $12 total. The government spends all that money providing services. It distributes services equally among its residents and is required to balance its budget.
-
-
Show this thread
-
Suppose the government wants to attract a new person, Di, to the state. The government is excited about all the business Di will bring, so it promises Di that her annual taxes will be only $1 if she makes the move. Di is thrilled and accepts the offer.
Show this thread -
Now the state has four people. The government collects $13 in taxes ($4 + $4 + $4 + $1) to be spent on services. But because government services are distributed equally, Al, Bo, and Cy now receive only $3.25 each in services ($13 / 4), even though each still pays $4 in taxes.
Show this thread -
In other words, Al, Bo, and Cy now get less for each tax dollar; their effective tax rate has gone up, thanks to the government's special break for Di.
Show this thread -
Suppose the government attempts to maintain government services at the level provided prior to Di's arrival, i.e., $4 per person in services. Since the state now has four people, the government will need to collect $16 in taxes. It currently collects $13.
Show this thread -
Di's annual taxes are fixed at $1, so the additional $3 will have to come from Al, Bo, and Cy. Consequently, Al, Bo, and Cy will have to pay $5 per person in taxes, to receive $4 per person in services, thanks to the government's special break for Di.
Show this thread -
Even if the government convinces Di to bear some of the additional tax burden, or finds another way to raise revenue, if any portion of the $3 comes from Al, Bo, and Cy, they will pay more in taxes than they receive in services, thanks to the government's special break for Di.
Show this thread -
Meanwhile, Di is living large. She is paying only $1 in annual taxes while receiving $3.25 to $4 in government services. The difference is a welfare subsidy to her, no less than if the government forced Al, Bo, and Cy to write her a check or hand her some cash.
Show this thread -
The fact that Di is receiving services paid for by others rather than dollar bills from others does not make the transfer any less a welfare subsidy.
Show this thread -
What about the claim that Di's arrival will boost the economy and more than pay for her special tax break? Many of the proponents of this view seem unaware that they are advocating central planning, a main tenet of socialism. To see this, let's return to the illustration.
Show this thread -
Advocates of Di's special tax break are saying that, ALL ELSE EQUAL, they would rather give Di a very large tax break (75%) than give everyone a modest tax break. In other words, they believe that government central planners can outperform the market by shifting money to Di.
Show this thread -
If your reply is "give others a tax break, too," then you've missed the point. You can't give others a tax break AND hold all else equal. The budget must be balanced; government spending would have to be cut. The relevant analysis is how best to tax at a GIVEN level of spending.
Show this thread -
We could rerun this illustration at a much lower level of government spending, and the relevant analysis again would be how best to tax at this level of spending: Is it best to give one person a very large tax break or to give everyone a modest tax break?
Show this thread -
For a primer on why the free market is superior to central planning, read this: https://fee.org/articles/the-use-of-knowledge-in-society/ …. In short, keeping more money in the hands of everyone produces better economic outcomes than giving a special advantage to one person.
Show this thread -
When advocates of Di's special tax break talk about the economic growth and jobs it will create, they commit the broken window fallacy: https://fee.org/articles/the-broken-window/ …. They ignore the break's opportunity cost; the government has deprived Al, Bo, and Cy of a tax break. That's a net loss.
Show this thread -
We can imagine variations of this illustration. For example, maybe Al, Bo, Cy, and Di already live in the same state, and then the government gives Di a special tax break for "economic development." The end result, however, is the same: The special break is economically harmful.
Show this thread -
This illustration is not meant to suggest that humans can design a perfect tax code. But when the government intentionally gives a special tax break to one entity, not only is the government undermining the Rule of Law, but it also is knowingly harming the economy.
Show this thread -
Bottom line: Targeted tax breaks are bad.
Show this thread -
Happy birthday, Frédéric Bastiat!
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Socialism: Benefits of labor are funneled to workers instead of upper class who own the means of production. Oligarchy: Upper class is allowed to manipulate the economy (especially gov’t taxes and subsidies) to further entrench their control. Correct premise, faulty vocabulary.
-
Socialism always leads to oligarchy. The "benefits" of collective labor predominately benefit the government central planners, who become oligarchs, at the expense of workers. 1/2
-
Any system can drift toward oligarchy once power gets consolidated, but there’s no germ of socialist intent in modern crony capitalism. It’s like calling unrestrained capitalism of the guilded age socialism.
-
Socialism ensures consolidation, because it assumes individual choice "fails," leaving no alternative BUT government choice. 1/2
-
That depends on the mechanism. If a labor union starts to help a workforce, that’s dividing power, not consolidating it. There is a worst case scenario where socialism leads to oligarchy, but in the US it’s like worrying about the bald eagle population crowding out pigeons.
-
The assumption that a labor union divides power assumes all members of unions can always agree and that all of the workforce wants the union. This never turns out to be the case.
-
Not at all. Government/Free Market/Unions are all imperfect representations of people’s will, and all can be corrupted by powerful people w/ leverage over them. But if there was a union, where there didn’t used to be, it divides the power and forces those institutions to compete
-
Only if all individuals involved in the workforce wanted the union. This assumes individuals themselves have no bargaining power over their own means of of employment. That may have been the case long ago and, in many cases, a focussed union is what varying individuals want.
- 11 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.