{"id":350,"date":"2011-10-02T15:01:00","date_gmt":"2011-10-02T19:01:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.cmhughesmd.com\/?p=350"},"modified":"2011-10-02T15:01:00","modified_gmt":"2011-10-02T19:01:00","slug":"daily-kos-an-indecent-proposal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/blog.cmhughesmd.com\/?p=350","title":{"rendered":"Daily Kos: An indecent proposal"},"content":{"rendered":"

Daily Kos: An indecent proposal<\/a>:<\/p>\n

That cut-up Grover Norquist suggest wealthy Americans like Warren Buffet contribute to the Federal government on an optional basis, and Hunter at DailyKos offers to accept the offer…<\/span><\/p>\n

My proposal is that we make taxes for wealthy Americans and corporations entirely optional. That’s it. If a corporation wants to pay zero percent in taxes, they should be allowed to, and if they want to pay the full tax rate, that is also allowed. The same for wealthy Americans.<\/p>\n

The only caveat is that non-contributing corporations and individuals will be barred from taking advantage of any government services. It is the perfect free-market-based opt-out: If you do not want to support the American infrastructure and population to the same extent that your fellow citizens do, you can simply decline to, and live your life as the libertarian god you have always longed to be. You will be free! You will be allowed to go Galt, or not go Galt, to whatever degree you wish; as a special bonus, we shall prevent you from becoming that most dreaded of figures, the parasite, since if you are not contributing to the benefit of society it only stands to reason you should not gain profit from it either.<\/p>\n

For starters, companies that do not pay the going tax rate will be barred from shipping their products on American roads. They will be prevented from connecting to the American electric grid, or from using municipal water or sewer systems. Instead, they will have to provide these services on-site. The good news: They can feel free to pollute as much as they like, as long as no pollution crosses the boundaries of their property (above, below or horizontally) into the rest of America. That would be considered an act of war.<\/p>\n

Wealthy Americans that opted out of paying the going tax rate would also, of course, be prohibited from using American roads. This would not be a problem for them, as they generally can afford airplanes or helicopters, which would be similarly fine so long as they did not use American airspace (sorry, but the FAA costs money too, you know). But they could certainly fly around the property, which might be a pleasant experience.<\/p>\n

Then we must consider the issue of security. Fire and police protection would be right out, so there would be no particular incentive for poorer Americans not to loot their properties (wealthy Americans tend to have nicer things than the rest of us). The American elite might consider the approach taken by wealthy Mexican families, which is to install a high perimeter fence around the property with a heavily armed private guard service. This would be expensive and unsightly, but it would be up to each individual to decide, for themselves, what the appropriate free-market level of protection for their own property might be. My one tip would be to spend a good deal of time on that decision.<\/p>\n

It goes without saying that non-contributing Americans, corporate or otherwise, would not have access to the courts. This should be fine with them, since we know that meddlesome lawsuits are the biggest non-tax-related threat to America today. There is the minor issue of no recourse, if armed mercenaries do manage to overpower your guards and make off with your antique commodes or whatever it is you rich people hoard these days: Again, though, think of the tax savings.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is a nice echo of Elizabeth Warren’s comments<\/a> on the arrogance of the John Galt wannabees<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

UPDATE: I posted this to the comments section:<\/p>\n

Don’t forget the socialism of WWII<\/span>  <\/p>\n

Let me add another item to your great piece, Hunter, and to Elizabeth Warren’s recent speech: Did the fathers of any of these captains of industry go to college on the GI Bill?
See here:<\/a><\/p>\n

Within the following 7 years, approximately 8 million veterans received educational benefits. Of that number, approximately 2,300,000 attended colleges and universities, 3,500,000 received school training, and 3,400,000 received on-the-job training. By 1951, this act had cost the government a total cost of approximately $14 billion.
The effects of increased enrollment to higher education were significant. Higher educational opportunities opened enrollment to a varied socioeconomic group than in the years past. Engineers and technicians needed for the technological economy were prepared from the ranks of returning veterans. Also, education served as a social safety valve that eased the traumas and tensions of adjustment from wartime to peace. For the American colleges and universities, the effects were transforming. In almost all institutions, classes were overcrowded. Institutions required more classrooms, laboratories, greater numbers of faculties, and more resources. House facilities became inadequate and new building programs were established. New vocational courses were also added. This new student population called for differential courses in advanced training in education, commerce, agriculture, mining, fisheries, and other vocational fields that were previously taught informally. Teaching staffs enlarged and summer and extension courses thrived. Further, the student population was no longer limited to those between 18-23. The veterans were eager to learn and had a greater sense of maturity, in comparison to the usual student stereotype. Finally, the idea that higher education was the privilege of a well-born elite was finally shattered.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And of course, it was continued after WW II: Continuation of the Bill<\/a><\/p>\n

The original G.I. Bill of 1944 expired in 1956, but the concept of veteran compensation continued, with all subsequent legislation still referred to as G.I. bills. In 1952 Congress passed the Veterans\u2019 Adjustment Act to compensate veterans of the Korean War (1950-1953). There were some minor differences between the World War II and Korean G.I. Bills, but the outcome was broadly similar. More than two million Korean War veterans used the G.I. Bill to go to college, and 1.5 million financed new homes. The G.I. Bill underwent a significant change in 1966, when Congress passed the Veterans Readjustment Benefits Act (VRBA) as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson\u2019s Great Society slate of social programs. The VRBA removed the requirement of serving in combat to receive government benefits, and instead made G.I. Bill benefits available to anyone who served in the military, whether in wartime or peacetime. Since 1966 the G.I. Bill has undergone a series of modifications and adjustments, but the fundamental benefits subsidizing education and home ownership remain the same. The Montgomery G.I. Bill (MGIB), enacted by Congress in 1985, provides educational stipends to former members of the military who contribute a small portion of their pay during their time in the service. The Post 9\/11 Veterans Assistance Act of 2008 (effective date August, 2009) substantially increased the amount of tuition and housing assistance, allows veterans to transfer benefits to their spouses and children, and provides tuition benefits for National Guard and Reserve members.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Daily Kos: An indecent proposal: That cut-up Grover Norquist suggest wealthy Americans like Warren Buffet contribute to the Federal government on an optional basis, and Hunter at DailyKos offers to … Continue reading “Daily Kos: An indecent proposal”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"sfsi_plus_gutenberg_text_before_share":"","sfsi_plus_gutenberg_show_text_before_share":"","sfsi_plus_gutenberg_icon_type":"","sfsi_plus_gutenberg_icon_alignemt":"","sfsi_plus_gutenburg_max_per_row":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[77,19,16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-350","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ayn-rand","category-contrarian-economics","category-social-justice"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/blog.cmhughesmd.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/350","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/blog.cmhughesmd.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/blog.cmhughesmd.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/blog.cmhughesmd.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/blog.cmhughesmd.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=350"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/blog.cmhughesmd.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/350\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/blog.cmhughesmd.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=350"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/blog.cmhughesmd.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=350"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/blog.cmhughesmd.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=350"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}