Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It seems ol' Beardsley is making the case that at one time this income tax was necessary, but no longer. One needs to ask themselves what has changed to merit this position?
From the synopsis, "Mr. Ruml does not say precisely how in that case the government would pay its own bills. One may assume that it would either shave its expenses out of the proceeds of taxes levied for social and economic ends or print the money it needs."
Also, "The corporation income tax cannot be abolished until some method is found to keep the corporate form from being used as a refuge from the individual income tax and as a means of accumulating unneeded, uninvested surpluses. Some way must be devised whereby the corporation earnings, which inure to the individual stockholders, are adequately taxed as income of these individuals."
So he is talking about abolishing the corporate income tax, but not the individual income tax? Or talking out of both sides of his mouth?
Sounds a bit like a man with an agenda, or his eye on a public sector job!
I don't think Ruml is saying to eliminate all taxes, as there are other reasons for taxes apart from running Gov't.
"What Taxes Are Really For
Federal taxes can be made to serve four principal purposes of a social and economic character. These purposes are:
1. As an instrument of fiscal policy to help stabilize the purchasing power of the dollar;
2. To express public policy in the distribution of wealth and of income, as in the case of the progressive income and estate taxes;
3. To express public policy in subsidizing or in penalizing various industries and economic groups;
4. To isolate and assess directly the costs of certain national benefits, such as highways and social security"
Ruml might have desired to eliminate corporate taxes, as they are merely paid by consumers anyway.
But as in today's 'C' and 'S' corps, there are laws to prevent schemes to hide personal income.
Then there is the irony that the Mises Institute is quoting a guy who is a central banker and says,
" Two changes of the greatest consequence have occurred in the last twenty-five years which have substantially altered the position of the national state with respect to the financing of its current requirements.
The first of these changes is the gaining of vast new experience in the management of central banks. The second change is the elimination, for domestic purposes, of the convertibility of the currency into gold."
While Beardsley seems to take no issue with either phenomenon.
Where does Mises quote someone who must be one of their nemesis? (nemeses?)
Why do we need Taxes? How else will the Government pay suppliers $800 for hammers that cost $5 at Harbor Freight. How else will we pay for all the takers of the nation that want to sit at home having kids and getting fat while the working class gets to support them. Then again that is not exactly true since most of the tax revenue comes from the wealthy.
Why do we need Taxes? How else will the Government pay suppliers $800 for hammers that cost $5 at Harbor Freight. How else will we pay for all the takers of the nation that want to sit at home having kids and getting fat while the working class gets to support them. Then again that is not exactly true since most of the tax revenue comes from the wealthy.
Depending mostly on politics and the state of our general economy, through money creation.
In any system of government in which the people are said to have some degree of self rule, it is incumbent on those people to have a rudimental understanding of how the system actually works.
We have in our current system a Federal Income Tax which has a substantial effect on the wealth of at least some portion of our population. So what is the purpose of this income tax?
Um, to pay for the goods and services provided by the government that we the people have elected to provide us with goods and services.
You need money to pay for stuff. It's this really amazing concept.
The idea that it's only to strengthen the dollar is a fallacy. The federal, state, and local income taxes will collect about $2.2 trillion in 2014.
There are many factors beyond simple money debasement that affect the value of any currency. In fact recently the dollar is gaining. Despite the Fed creating many billions of new money.
Where does Mises quote someone who must be one of their nemesis? (nemeses?)
Since Mises is the go to source for libertarians and Beardsley seems to have no problem with going off the gold standard for "domestic purposes" and by complicity is endorsing central banking (both anathema to the libertarian ideal) I find it amusing.
Since Mises is the go to source for libertarians and Beardsley seems to have no problem with going off the gold standard for "domestic purposes" and by complicity is endorsing central banking (both anathema to the libertarian ideal) I find it amusing.
Are you saying Ruml was a Libertarian?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
