Re: What if and Why of Zero Taxation

["Harry Veeder" <eo200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----------
>From: larson@xxxxxx
>To: pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: What if and Why of Zero Taxation
>Date: Sun, Jan 27, 2002, 1:44 PM
>

>Quoting Harry Veeder <eo200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>> Capitalist style production/consumption wouldn't be viable without
>> taxation. Through taxation, the world of money and prices
>> is pressed into the social future making forward production
>> possible.
>
>You can accomplish that by means of debt.

It is not enough. You need taxes and debt and interest.
Modern money is a dynamic '3-D' construct. Debt is only effective
as long the interest on the debt is collected in taxes.

>Taxes can solve moral problems, but
>are not the only means to do so. Every cent taxed is a transfer of control over
>purchasing power from individuals to the collective.

Taxation in this instance reminds today's individuals that they are
limits to how much of the future they can claim for themselves with money.
The idea that employment woes are simply due to a bunch of pathological
hoarders of money somewhere out there is an attractive notion because
it conveniently bolsters the Keynesian generation's own claims on the
future. That future is now the present for Gen-X.

> Experience from both sides
>of the Atlantic tell us that small governments are less damaging to the economy
>once they begin to mess things up by means of public spending and taxes. A well
>managed public sector can, in theory, process 60, even 70% of GDP and only make
>good contributions. But the risks with big governments - in fact, ANY
>government - is that pruden budget balancers take charge. And then we're in
>more trouble the bigger the government is. With a consitutional ban on budget
>surpluses (and, even better, mandatory deficits of a percentage of GDP that
>matches the rate of unemployment) we can keep adherents of the Holy Budget
>Balance out of legislative power.
>/srl

I don't understand. If by big government you mean a large public service
then deficits go hand in hand with big governments. Surpluses go hand in
hand with a shrinking public service. At least that is what happened in
Canada.

Harry Veeder