So The Poor Pay No Taxes?

I can’t tell you how many times I have debunked the argument that the rich are already overburdened with taxation. I just finished listening to Rush Limbaugh rant for the longest time on this topic. Notice there is not a billionaire or even a serious millionaire in the world who has any interest in cutting spending. Why is that, you might ask? Why would a rich person not want to cut government spending? The rich lobby for more spending instead. Given that situation, is there any reason to talk in terms of who pays their fair share of the tax burden? By paying high taxes, the rich guarantee themselves that government will continue to grow in size. When government grows, the rich get richer.

The rich are the only income group which on balance benefits from government spending. For the super rich, government is a profit generating engine. When we tax the rich heavily, we are only forcing them to pay their business expense.

I have made the case many times that corporations, through their influence on government, have taxing power of their own. When the relationship between corporations and government becomes corrupt, the poor end up paying part of corporate taxes with everything they buy.

The only fair form of taxation is that which taxes those who benefit the most from government. This would be a hard case to make it that group was the poor or middle class. The rich have the money and power to reduce the size of government if that is deemed to be in their best interest.

This entry was posted in Daily Comments on by .

About Fantasy Free Economics

James Quillian independent scholar,free market economist,and teacher of natural law. Who is James Quillian? Certainly I am nobody special, Just a tireless academic and deep thinker. Besides that, I have broken the code with respect to economics and political science. Credentials? Nothing you would be impressed with. I am not a household name. It is hard to become famous writing that virtually no one in the country is genuinely not in touch with reality. But, if I did not do that, there would be no point in my broking the broken the code. If you read the blog, it is easy to see that there are just a few charts, no math and no quantitative analysis. That is not by accident. Given what I know, those items are completely useless. I do turn out to be highly adept at applying natural law. Natural law has predominance over any principles the social science comes up. By virtue of understanding natural law, I can debunk, in just a few sentences , any theory that calls for intervention by a government. My taking the time to understand the ins and outs of Keynes General Theory is about like expecting a chemistry student to completely grasp all that the alchemists of the middle ages thought they understood in efforts to turn base metals into goal. Keynesian theory clearly calls for complete objectivity. Government can only make political decisions. Keynesian techniques call for economic decisions. So, why go any further with that? Fantasy Free Economics is in a sense a lot like technical analysis. Technical analysis began with the premise that it was impossible to gain enough information studying fundamentals to gain a trading advantage. Study the behavior of investors instead. Unlike technical analysis, I don't use technical charts. What I understand are the incentives of different people and entities active in the economics arena. For example, there is no such thing as an incentive to serve with life in the aggregate. In the aggregate, only self interest applies. It is routinely assumed otherwise. That is highly unappealing. But, I am sorry. That is the way it is. I can accept that because I am genuinely in touch with reality. Step one in using Fantasy Free Economics is for me to understand just how little I really know. A highly credentialed economist may know 100 times what I do based on the standard dogma. Compare the knowledge each of us has compared to all there is to know and we both look like we know nothing at all. There is always more than we don't know than what we do know. I am humble enough to present myself on that basis. Why? That is the way it is. I am not bad at math. I have taught math. What I understand is when to use it and when to rely on something else. Math is useless in natural law so I don't use it. While others look at numbers, I am busy understanding the forces in nature that makes their numbers what they are. That gives me a clear advantage.