Taxation With Representation

“No Taxation without Representation!” is one of the commonly referred to causes of the War for Independence.  This cry was largely rooted in John Locke’s assertion that a government forfeited its legitimacy when “any one shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on the people, by his own authority, and without such consent of the people, he thereby invades the fundamental law of property, and subverts the end of government."

The issue of taxes and spending remained central to the political discussion after the war.  The Articles of Confederacy were purposefully weak in their ability to raise funds, to the point where it was difficult to discharge the debts incurred by the war itself.  Even so, the Constitution originally stated that "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census" and even then the funds could only be spent "to pay the Debts and provide for the... general Welfare of the United States."

It stands that the best kind of government spending is that which is approved by the majority of the people, with the costs equally shouldered across the people, and the benefits borne by the general people as a whole.

Any time one of those three criteria is compromised, the authority to tax and spend becomes perverted.

Less preferred, but still acceptable is when the benefits are reaped by a few, but those few bear the lion’s share of the costs.  User pays.  This is rare, however, because why would someone who had the ability and desire to pay for something decide to launder their money through the bureaucracy to do so?

No, in most cases special interests want to reap the benefit while forcing others to shoulder the costs.  When the tax-and-spend power of government is no longer paid by the People on behalf of the People, it becomes tantamount to theft by majority (in the case of popular support) or theft by the powerful (in the case of a small but politically influential group).  If history is any indicator, abusing the power of taxation eventually stirs the ire of the populace and undermines the very legitimacy of the government.

You Gotta Live

The "cost of living increase" was a brilliant scam to disguise the insidious effects of inflation.  The powers that be convinced the masses that each year they had to work harder and get bigger raises just to maintain their standard of living.
That flies in the face of common sense. Every year we come up with more efficient ways to build better products. Technology improves, allowing us to make more goods more quickly while consuming fewer resources and taking less working hours. According to the laws of supply and demand that means the consumer should enjoy more and cheaper goods.
That was the result during the agricultural revolution and the industrial revolution, where food and goods became cheaper and more plentiful. Why is that not the case today? Because the government intercepts these gains.  By printing more money to finance deficit spending, they create inflationary pressure causing prices to rise.
In some cases like the tech field, the downward pressure of innovation is able to overcome inflationary pressures, but in other areas that are more stagnant (notably oil and food) we see prices continue to rise.
This is not the "cost of living" it is the cost of inflation created by government debt and the working class bears the burden most of all. The sooner people realize there is no free lunch the sooner we can work to change this pattern and return the fruits of progress to the People.

The Happy Fantasy

A common mantra that I’ve heard from my left-leaning friends is that a) everyone should be able to earn a “decent” living doing whatever they enjoy and b) that everyone deserves to have a “decent” car, house, clothes, vacation, etc.  Blame touchy-feely high school guidance counselors for the first fallacy, which has directly led to the disillusioned masses of psychology, fine arts and literature majors populating the Occupy Wall Street movement.

The hard facts of life are that not everyone can do what they enjoy most for a living.  Otherwise there would be far more rappers, football players and fly fishermen than we would know what to do with.  Meanwhile, sewers would go uninspected, crime scenes would go uncleaned and garbage would collect by curbside.  Seriously.  If it weren’t for an appealing paycheck (or a lack of other opportunities), who would wake up in the morning and say “Gee, I really want to muck through people’s feces today”?  Similarly, jobs that are stepping stones to bigger and better things would also be avoided entirely.  Intern?  Nope, I want to be CEO.  Apprentice?  Just let me rig that wiring.  Draftsman?  I’m ready to build skyscrapers.  If you enjoy your work, consider it a bonus.  Otherwise, many of us go to work each day at a job we don’t mind doing (too much) so that we can do the things we enjoy (such as fly fishing).

The second fallacy lies in the varying standards of what constitutes “decent.”  If you ask ten people to describe a decent car, you’re bound to get twelve answers.  And there are folks who are willing to trade a less than decent car in exchange for, say, vacationing in France every year.  As any marketing major will tell you, tastes vary widely across the spectrum, because value (like beauty) is truly in the eye of the beholder.  Systems that try to meet everyone’s needs with a one-size-fits-all approach generally do it badly, leaving no one satisfied.  As the saying goes Comrade, it comes in two sizes: too big or too small.

The endless summer, where everyone lives in a mansion and gets paid to surf and look good, exists only in imaginations and fantasies.