Notice how the flash crash was over in a flash? Of course, he makes an unsubstantiated claim about stock trades by saying that computers are taking money away from the rest of us.
Holt suffers from the same error as Dog Gone--namely that knowing a bunch of trivia does not make one an expert.
As presented and proposed here, such a tiny tax is hard to argue with. The problem is, how do we keep the greedy bastards in both parties from inching it up. It's a fraction of a penny now. When we spend all of that money on wars and pork and need money it will be raised to a penny. Then a nickle. Etc.
This has happened with every tax imposed so far, which suggests it would happen here.
There's noting pathological about it. It's the result of merely looking at history.
The income tax was first instituted as a tax that only affected a tiny number of extremely wealthy people, but it was not indexed to inflation, and now we all get to deal with it.
The sales tax was conceived of as a tiny tax in the states that instituted it, but now it's inched up so that it adds at least 10% to every purchase I make in Tennessee.
The Estate and Gift tax was instituted to skim a bit off of the largest estates, but it was also not indexed to inflation and so it eventually was snatching large amounts of money from the estates of middle class individuals, leading to a great deal of backlash and thus support for W for wanting to reduce or eliminate it, helping push his tax cuts over the top. It got reduced, and phased out for one year. Now it's back, but they raised the threshold to $5,000,000, so it won't affect most people for a few more decades or longer depending on how much inflation we see in the future.
In Scotland, I'm sure the liquor taxes started small and inched up, but when I was there, the cost of a bottle of Scotch was the same (when converted to US Dollars) for low end Scotch, up to double for high end brands, because the taxes had risen to the level that they were equivalent to the US and Tennessee Liquor taxes, the Import costs, whatever duties were assessed, and the profits of the additional middle men in the supply line all together.
So, in this case, why is it pathological for me to assume that the same thing might happen? Especially when we look at all of the reasons that could motivate the tiny increases that would add up over time?
War spending causes massive deficits, so we decide to raise taxes to cover the cost and then never lower them to pre-war levels afterward (as has been our pattern). Deficits arise naturally and we decide to raise all taxes by some small percentage to ameliorate it. Speculation continues apace, so we need another fraction of a cent to either discourage it, or to "ameliorate the harms it causes." Someone gets elected during a recession and decides to raise it as a way of "Sticking it to the fat cats." Someone proposes raising it as a way to balance out a special interest, social planning tax credit they want. Etc.
Notice how the flash crash was over in a flash? Of course, he makes an unsubstantiated claim about stock trades by saying that computers are taking money away from the rest of us.
ReplyDeleteHolt suffers from the same error as Dog Gone--namely that knowing a bunch of trivia does not make one an expert.
As presented and proposed here, such a tiny tax is hard to argue with. The problem is, how do we keep the greedy bastards in both parties from inching it up. It's a fraction of a penny now. When we spend all of that money on wars and pork and need money it will be raised to a penny. Then a nickle. Etc.
ReplyDeleteThis has happened with every tax imposed so far, which suggests it would happen here.
You've got a pathological fear of the slippery slope.
DeleteThere's noting pathological about it. It's the result of merely looking at history.
DeleteThe income tax was first instituted as a tax that only affected a tiny number of extremely wealthy people, but it was not indexed to inflation, and now we all get to deal with it.
The sales tax was conceived of as a tiny tax in the states that instituted it, but now it's inched up so that it adds at least 10% to every purchase I make in Tennessee.
The Estate and Gift tax was instituted to skim a bit off of the largest estates, but it was also not indexed to inflation and so it eventually was snatching large amounts of money from the estates of middle class individuals, leading to a great deal of backlash and thus support for W for wanting to reduce or eliminate it, helping push his tax cuts over the top. It got reduced, and phased out for one year. Now it's back, but they raised the threshold to $5,000,000, so it won't affect most people for a few more decades or longer depending on how much inflation we see in the future.
In Scotland, I'm sure the liquor taxes started small and inched up, but when I was there, the cost of a bottle of Scotch was the same (when converted to US Dollars) for low end Scotch, up to double for high end brands, because the taxes had risen to the level that they were equivalent to the US and Tennessee Liquor taxes, the Import costs, whatever duties were assessed, and the profits of the additional middle men in the supply line all together.
So, in this case, why is it pathological for me to assume that the same thing might happen? Especially when we look at all of the reasons that could motivate the tiny increases that would add up over time?
War spending causes massive deficits, so we decide to raise taxes to cover the cost and then never lower them to pre-war levels afterward (as has been our pattern).
Deficits arise naturally and we decide to raise all taxes by some small percentage to ameliorate it.
Speculation continues apace, so we need another fraction of a cent to either discourage it, or to "ameliorate the harms it causes."
Someone gets elected during a recession and decides to raise it as a way of "Sticking it to the fat cats."
Someone proposes raising it as a way to balance out a special interest, social planning tax credit they want.
Etc.