Complexities in the code and a labyrinth of rules to obtain credits mean tax compliance costs are unacceptably high for small businesses.

Small businesses want simplicity in the tax code and they want rates for individual taxpayers kept low. Close to 75 percent of small businesses pay tax on their business income at the individual level, making it imperative that the 2001 tax cuts be made permanent.

Unduly burdensome regulations disproportionately affect the small-business community costing them around 36 percent more per employee than their larger counterparts.

In FY 2010, federal agencies unleashed 43 major new rules’  and the costs of implementing these rules was $28 billion.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the budget deficits in 2009 and 2010, as measured as a share of GDP, were the largest since 1945. They represent almost 10 percent of the GDP and the estimated budget deficit for 2011 is going to stay in that range.

The businesses that face potential penalties are those with 50 or more full-timers or full-time equivalents (FTEs) as well as owners with multiple businesses totaling 50 or more full-timers or FTEs

The penalties are steep.  For employers that do not provide health insurance coverage, the penalty is $2,000 per year per employee (minus the first 30 employees).  For employers that do provide coverage, if one or more of its employees receive insurance subsidies, then the business will pay $3,000 per subsidized employee or $2,000 per employee (minus the first 30) – whichever is less.

Readers of this site know that we always look at incentive structures.  We know that changing the rules of the game, the rewards and the punishments, will change economic behavior.

NFIB economists predict that the mandate will affect the economy in the following ways.

Businesses will spend real resources determining how many employees they have with respect to the employer mandate. They will face time-consuming, arbitrary administrative burdens associated with employees seeking insurance subsidies in the new insurance exchanges.

The mandate makes it extremely expensive to cross the 50-employee threshold. For example, a mid-sized restaurant that goes from 49 to 50 employees will face a $40,000 per year penalty. A business can avoid the penalties by firing employees, by not hiring new ones, or by outsourcing. Estimating the costs of hiring and expanding will be complex and confusing.

Businesses subject to the employer mandate will receive monthly government reports on subsidized employees that inadvertently reveal personal financial data on employees’ spouses and families. This raises discomforting privacy concerns and exposure to liability for employers.

For some firms, the employer mandate will result in large fines when there are private changes in their employees’ households. For example, an employee’s spouse losing a job or an employee’s spouse’s elderly relative moving into their house could trigger thousands of dollars in annual penalties. Employers will not be entitled to know the details of what caused their penalty – unless they challenge the employee’s honesty before a government agency.

The employer mandate will increase costs, and producers will pass them along to consumers.

A few quick observations. Why is Vermont (by far) the state with the largest proportion of non-poor people signed up for welfare programs? I have no idea, but maybe this explains why they elect people like Bernie Sanders. But it’s not just Vermont. Four of the top five states on the Moocher Index are from the Northeast, as are six of the top nine. Mississippi also scores poorly, coming in second, but many other southern states do well. Indeed, if we reversed the ranking and did a Self-Reliance Index, Virginia, Florida, and Georgia would score in the top 10. Nevada, arguably the nation’s most libertarian state, is the state with the lowest number of non-poor people signed up for welfare.

Q: Why are there non-poor people who are net recipients of government income transfers?

A: Because they have votes that can be bought.

Please subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Facebook group.

Robust job growth requires boldness and risk-taking in the private sector. What we have now is boldness and risk-taking in the public sector. It is loading as much debt onto the balance sheet as possible, and creating the predicate for more regulation, spending, and taxes. We have active government and hesitant entrepreneurs.

Late in the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt’s Treasury secretary, Henry Morgenthau, told Congress, “We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.” Democrats have made Morgenthau’s plaint their governing ethic. In so doing, they are demonstrating their political and intellectual bankruptcy even faster than they are bankrupting the country.

Spending money does not create wealth.  Spending money does not raise the standard of living.

But it lets politicians feel like they’re “doing something” and gives their fat egos a boost.  Also, spending money buys votes  … even if it’s at the expense of what will soon be a bankrupted citizenry.

Please subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Facebook group.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that the nine states without an income tax are growing far faster and attracting more people than are the nine states with the highest income tax rates. People and businesses change the location of income based on incentives.

Likewise, who is gobsmacked when they are told that the two wealthiest Americans—Bill Gates and Warren Buffett—hold the bulk of their wealth in the non-taxed form of unrealized capital gains? The composition of wealth also responds to incentives. And it’s also simple enough for most people to understand that if the government taxes people who work and pays people not to work, fewer people will work. Incentives matter.

It’s a good piece, but take everything Laffer says with a grain of salt.  He was cheer-leading the housing bubble (contra Peter Schiff) in 06 through 08.

Please subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Facebook group.

Public unions’ traditional strength–the ability to finance their members’ rising pay and benefits through tax increases–has become a liability. Although private sector unions always have had to worry that consumers will resist rising prices for their goods, public sector unions have benefited from the fact that taxpayers can’t choose–they are, in effect, “captive consumers.”

At some point, however, voters turn resentful as they sense that: (1) they are underwriting, through their taxes, a level of salary and benefits for government employment that is better than what they and their families have; and (2) government services, from schools to the DMV, are not good enough—not for the citizen individually nor the public generally—to justify the high and escalating cost.

We are at that point.

Read the whole article and share with your friends, family, and – especially – employees and co-workers.

Please subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Facebook group.

Our current administration in Washington is seeking new ways to raise money for all the new entitlements they are creating.  Almost everything is being taxed.  They have overlooked one thing, though.  They have yet to establish a tax on breathing.  Here is what we might expect in the way of introduction and public announcement of a new public policy.

For too many years, citizens have taken for granted the air we breathe.  It is too valuable a resource to be casually consumed, wasted and ignored as the valuable asset that it is.  To reassure the public as to the worth of air, your government will levee a tax on your consumption.

Each citizen over the age of 13 will be required to purchase and wear a breath-ometer.  Your breath-ometer will be sold and distributed by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and will measure the number of breaths each citizen takes each month.  The IRS will require, on the first day of each month, that each citizen either report to an IRS Breath Center to have his or her breath-ometer records entered into the IRS tax data base, or citizens may interface their breath-ometer with a computer peripheral, which will be sold separately.  A tax will be assessed on each breath.

Your government recognizes that financially less fortunate citizens may not be able to afford the purchase of breath-ometers.  For that reason, they will be supplied at no cost to the needy, and the expense absorbed by the wealthy – say those earning over $50,0000 per year.

Since each breath consumed results in the exhale of CO₂, the tax levied on each breath will not only collect income on each breath consumed, but also tax the CO₂ pollution generated by each breath.  For those who wish to do so, carbon offsets may be purchased from Al Gore.  The purchase of carbon offsets will decrease the tax on each breath by 30%.

For further information about the Breath-ometer Program, see the web page www.hotair.gov.

Please subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Facebook group to stand with other small business people against Big Government.

Dr.  Barry Jacobs is a Reproductive Endocrinologist, practicing in Carrollton, Texas, a northern suburb of Dallas. He completed his residency training in obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, and remained at that institution to become its first fellow once Baylor achieved accreditation for an advanced training program in Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility. Dr. Jacobs has served on the faculty of several medical schools and was director of Reproductive Endocrinology at Texas Tech Health Science Center in Amarillo. Currently, in addition to his clinical activities caring for infertile patients and those with recurrent pregnancy loss, he is Chairman of the IVF committee at Baylor Medical Center in Carrollton.

The Senate health care bill crucial to saving President Obama’s signature domestic initiative will hit the wallets of a quarter of all Americans making less than $200,000 per year, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Joint Tax Committee that assessed the way the bill would hit taxpayers directly through new taxes and fees and indirectly through taxes levied on health care providers and passed on to consumers.

The committee also determined that the bill would subsidized insurance premiums for 7 percent of taxpayers — about 13 million people — while some 73 million people would face higher costs from the new fees and taxes.

“For every family that gets some benefit from this program, in other words, a premium subsidy, three families are going to get a tax increase and those three families obviously include the bulk of people you’d call middle class America,” Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told Fox News.

Watch the words directly from the Dissembler-in-Chief’s mouth.

Please subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Facebook group to stand with other small business people against Big Government.

Global warming exists.  So does global cooling.   The British Navy has logs of sea water and air temperatures from all over the world that date over several centuries.  They have documented warming and cooling of both.  Our atmosphere is warmed by sea and land, which are, in turn, warmed by the sun.  For those who remember a little chemistry or physics, water has a very high specific heat, which means it holds its temperature quite well.  The gasses in our atmosphere do not.  The air does not warm the oceans.  It is the other way around.

Is carbon dioxide a “green house gas”?  In very high concentrations, it is.  Those levels would be toxic to all animal life on earth.  Plants on land and in the sea and lakes absorb vast amounts of carbon dioxide from the air and use it to make additions or replications of themselves.   The process is known as photosynthesis, because it is powered by the sun.

Is there a significant “green house gas” in our atmosphere?  Yes, there is.  It is called water vapor.  Even in its gaseous state, water has a high specific heat.  Convince yourself of this.  Go to the desert or even the plains states.  I lived 4 years in Amarillo, Texas.  Amarillo has about 300 sunny days a year, and very low relative humidity.  That is to say, very little water vapor in the local air.  During the summer, afternoon temperatures can be over 100° F, with a relative humidity of less than 20%.  Within 2 hours after sunset, the air temperature is about 60°.

Why is there such a scare about global warming?  For one thing, we live in a chicken-little society.  People hear isolated facts and make the assumption that the sky is falling.  Is the sea level rising on average?  No, it is not.  Are polar bears really in danger of extinction?  No, they are not.  In fact polar bear populations keep increasing.

Why do we keep hearing of impending disaster if we do not commit acts to reverse it, when current scientific evidence is that there has been no increase in global temperature in 11 years?  Why are there still screams that the polar ice caps are melting, when in reality, they are again expanding?  NASA measurements confirm these facts.  The media keeps beating the same tired drum, but has changed the verse from global warming to climate change.  Is there some profit to be made by this activity?  Of course there is.  It sells copy, and, therefore advertising.  Who else is making money from terrorizing the global public with the false mantra?  Perhaps the highest profile profit of this putative doom is Al Gore.

Al Gore is a co-founder of an organization called Generation Investment Management.  If cap and trade is passed into law, GIM will make billions of dollars as a broker for carbon credits.  Poor Al!  The British High Court, after reviewing his Oscar winning film An Inconvenient Truth, cited several false statements and declared it was not a scientific documentary, but a propaganda film.  If it were to allowed to be shown in British schools, there need be a disclaimer to that effect.  Even some of the film sequences are Hollywood inventions for entertainment as disaster films.

Why is there a repeated cycling of global warming and cooling?  That explanation is still speculative.  The best scientific evidence I can find is that there are “wobbles” in the Earth’s orbit which take it closer and farther from the sun, depending on alignments of other planets in our solar system.  The sun itself goes through cycles of greater and lesser heat generation.  To believe that human activity at this point in our technology and population can truly effect global climate is the height of conceit.

Having expressed my conclusion from what I have read, I still advocate conservation of our natural resources, but let’s do it for the real reasons.  I absolutely agree that we are stewards of our planet, which some have called “Mother Earth”.   Yes, we should respect our Mother Earth, and preserve her beauty for our grandchildren, and their grandchildren, and so on.  We can do so without creating an economic disaster.

–

SBABG call to action.  What can be done:

The far left in American is using a contrived and non-existent “crisis” in a blatantly dishonest and cynical grab for power.  As the Wall Street Journal Recently Reported:

“Global” and “warming” are perhaps the two most important words used to justify the approaching governmental control of our economy. In reality, global warming is barely occurring: In the 30 years starting in 1977, warming amounted to 0.32 degree Fahrenheit per decade, and in the next hundred years it is estimated to be about half a degree per decade.

The Senate should immediately stop all activity on Cap and Tax.  Inaction is the only responsible course.  It’s contrary to their Chicken Little natures, but we can make them stop if we pressure them enough. 

Click here to send a free letter to your congressional representative telling them you oppose Cap and Tax.

Stay informed by regularly visiting the Climate Skeptic blog.  If you are in or near the Phoenix, AZ area on November 10th, please attend the Climate Skeptic Presentation on November  (it’s free and being held one day before Al Gore’s big carbon-burning entourage arrives for him to peddle his error-riddled propaganda).

Cap and Tax is devastating to small businesses and the junk science it is premised upon in being increasingly exposed for the sham that it is.

Sign up for our RSS feed and become a fan of our Facebook Page and we’ll keep you informed about how Big Government drums up false crises based on junk science to try and take the products of your labor and take control your life.

–

Dr. Barry Jacobs is a Reproductive Endocrinologist, practicing in Carrollton, Texas, a northern suburb of Dallas. He completed his residency training in obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, and remained at that institution to become its first fellow once Baylor achieved accreditation for an advanced training program in Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility. Dr. Jacobs has served on the faculty of several medical schools and was director of Reproductive Endocrinology at Texas Tech Health Science Center in Amarillo. Currently, in addition to his clinical activities caring for infertile patients and those with recurrent pregnancy loss, he is Chairman of the IVF committee at Baylor Medical Center in Carrollton.

You dirty rat.

Chicago and Cook County residents aren’t the only ones about to get shocking tax news; the city is debuting a “tax whistle-blower” plan that could turn neighbor against neighbor in Chicago’s business community.

The folks at city hall will pay cash bounties to informants who turn in business tax cheats around the city. The reward would amount to some sort of percentage of the tax money that the city recovers.

“It’s just another way of bringing people into compliance,” Revenue Department spokesman Ed Walsh told the Sun-Times.

“It would probably be … a business knowing that a competitor is not remitting a tax. An employee [of the tax-dodging business] could know that, too. Typically, you need to provide some type of incentive.”

If you think this sounds like a good idea, you are dead wrong.

This program isn’t about “reporting a crime” which is what we all ought to do when we see a crime committed.  The point is that it gives people A SHARE OF THE MONEY THEY HELP CONFISCATE!

Chicago is turning civilian spying into a state-backed business.

Whatever your feelings about the criminality/non-criminality of tax evasion (conscientious objection, etc), this program doesn’t have anything to do with citizenship and crime reporting. It is state-backed and rather than dissuade “bad behavior” actually encourages it.

Look at the procedure and then the incentive systems.

A new value-added tax (VAT) is “on the table” to help the U.S. address its fiscal liabilities, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Monday night.

“I would say, Put everything on the table and subject it to the scrutiny that it deserves,” Pelosi told Rose when asked if the VAT has any appeal to her.

Everything?  Has any tax has ever been OFF the table for Ms. Pelosi?

The Speaker also emphasized that any reworking of the tax code would not result in an increase in taxes on middle-class Americans.

Of course it’s won’t.  Just as the health care bill she’s pushing through congress doesn’t raise taxes on people making less than $250K as the president promised.

Let your friends know that the taxman is coming and help understand the perils of burdensome taxation, then sign up for our RSS feed and become a fan of our Facebook Page. We’ll keep you educated on the issues and motivated to fight against Big Government.

“Look, mister, there’s two kinds of dumb.  A guy that gets naked and runs out in the snow and barks at the moon, and a guy who does the same thing in my living room. First one don’t matter, the second one you’re kinda forced to deal with.” – George from Hoosiers

So, we just learned of some moon barking in our living room that we’re kinda forced to deal with.

Liberator Online reported that:

“Chuck Collins, inheritor of the vast Oscar Mayer fortune and coauthor of a book entitled Robin Hood Was Right, has formed an organization with the unpleasant title of Wealth for the Common Good to…increase the top tax marginal income tax rate from 35% to 39.6% on household incomes over $235,000.”

Why should you care? Well, other than the fact that burdensome taxes are bad for prosperity, most small businesses pay income taxes at the household level so any plan to raise tax rates on incomes is a direct tax hike on small businesses, too – sole proprietorships, partnerships, S-corporations, and family farms.

Choke down that tax increase!

Collins is looking for billionaires to sign a petition to deliver to President Obama asking the President to raise taxes on individuals and small businesses that have income of $235K and more.

To put this in perspective, that’s like asking guys who make $100,000 per year to petition the government to increase taxes on people who make $23 per year.

What’s this notion that one person personally feels like he should pay more in taxes, then takes the extra step to decide that everyone who he labels as “rich” ought to be compelled to pay more, too?

What is driving this?  Guilt or compassion?

If compassion, why not give your own wealth to charity and then spend your time persuading others to donate as well, rather than trying to compel them to fund Big Government?

Charities are 120% more efficient, less wasteful, and more accountable than government. But then again, efficiency is a notion that earners, not inheritors, understand.

Chuck Collins inherited his money.  Laudably, he gave much of it away to private charity and for all purposes seems to be a genuine individual who feels compassion for the poor.

That’s wonderful.  But for this same reason, it’s perplexing to us that this inheritor wants to now pull real-earners into a Big Government tax fantasy.

Since Mr. Collins didn’t earn the money he gave away (a characteristic he shares with government), we might forgive him for not knowing how to use it to build the economy.  However, earners do know what to do with their money.  It’s vital to not prevent them from their role of creating value and jobs in the world, helping raise the standard of living for all of us, and building our current and future economy.

We of course advocate for charitable giving, and lots of it.  But if charity just isn’t good enough for Mr. Collins and the billionaires he seeks, there’s no law preventing them from GIVING THEIR OWN MONEY to the government.

Just write a check and send to:

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 6D37
Hyattsville, MD 20782

Here’s the website that has all the information he needs.

Why try to marshal the coercive forces of big government to confiscate the wealth of others?

Should we really be surprised that an inheritor of the Oscar Mayer fortune could be such a big wiener? (OK, that was juvenile but who could resist?)

This kind of thinking has plagued Warren Buffett, too.  He has, on occasion, argued that he should be taxed more and that others should be forced to pay more dollars to the government, too.

When I read the book The Audacity of Hope, the passages highlighting exchanges between Warren Buffett and Barack Obama made me roll my eyes.  Buffett spewed non-sensical platitudes about how “society” has been so good to him and other rich people, rewarding them with wealth, that he and they are somehow morally obligated to pay it back to “society” in the form of … (drum roll) … taxes.

Three things to point out to Buffett.

First, hey, we’re society, not the government.  We’re the ones that buy your insurance and the goods your companies sell, not the government.  You want to give back to society?  We’ll be happy to take that check anytime you’d like.  In the meantime, just keep creating valuable goods and services and we’ll trade with you voluntarily because you’re making our lives better off.

Just stop conflating “society” with “government” Mr. Buffett, OK?

Second, Mr. Buffett does pay more in taxes.  Ten percent of $100 is ten times more than ten percent of $10.  Yes, most of his income is in the form of dividends, not income (and dividends are taxed at a lower rate than income), but he could “remedy” that if he wanted to – just give the difference to the government or change his compensation structure.

Last, our biggest rub with Buffett is that he’s so darn insincere.  When he dies, he’s not giving his money to government.  On the contrary, he’s protecting as much of it as he can from the government – the Bill Gates Charitable Foundation will receive every last penny he controls.

Now, we applaud this!  But we boo the Oracle of Omaha’s hypocrisy to wish higher taxes on others when he full well has spent his life not only legally avoiding them as much as possible, but also directing his fortune away from the Big Government entity he’d like to see others coercively fund.

It was Dick Gephardt who said, “Those who have prospered and profited from life’s lottery have a moral obligation to share their good fortune.”

This erroneous notion of life as “lottery” is what has misled Buffett, too.  It’s a deterministic, fatalistic view of the world wherein some are predestined to succeed and some to fail and those who succeed do so only at the expense of others.

Of course inequities exist – some natural, some artificial – but they are not due to “life’s lottery” and the way to remedy them – if they need to be remedied at all – is not through confiscatory takings.

It’s like the parable of the Ant and the Grasshopper is a fiction to the Gephardts of the world.  It’s as if the Ant really scratched a few numbers on a card and thereby prospered, rather than having worked all summer while the grasshopper played.

Perhaps inheritors such as Chuck Collins could be seen as lottery winners, but they’re not.  Those who bequeathed them money were real earners who made real value in the world and had the right to transfer their private property to whomever they desired when they died.

Big Government has already implemented many “life as lottery” policies and that’s why it instituted a death tax to try and confiscate the property of deceased individuals and, ironically, prevent people like Collins from inheriting money.

In the end, even people like Collins should be able to inherit more than they currently do out of respect for the property rights of those who choose to voluntarily bequeath their private property to others.

If Collins can’t use his wealth to create real prosperity or give it to effective charities, or use his station to encourage wealthy people to voluntarily give, then give it to us and we’ll show him how!

You can let Collins know what you think here.

Sign up for our RSS feed and become a fan of our Facebook Page. We’ll keep you updated about how Big Government and it’s enablers try to get into your wallet and what you can do to beat it back.

Over the last few weeks Congress and the Administration have been trying to call government takeover of health insurance and health care “competition”.  They have hijacked words and are using them in completely new ways to try and trick people into believing they are selling something they’re not.

The expansionist and interventionist nature of Big Government means that it always has as its goal to set up Monopsonies (single payer systems in which they control the production of goods and services) or Monopolies (single provider systems in which they control the provision of goods and services).  They try to do it in the name of “competition” as if they actually plan on competing fairly (if at all) with the private businesses and charities they’re trying to muscle out of a market.

Battles against Big Government are often won or lost over whether or not we are willing to concede the actual terms of the argument to Big Government, or whether we’ll refuse to conduct the argument with Big Government’s terms.  Below are a few examples of how we can change the terms and, therefore, how people feel about Big Government’s activities.

“Revenue” vs. “Confiscation”

Here’s a glaring example.  Big Government calls taxation by the name of “Revenue”. The agency in charge of collecting taxes is even called the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

Set aside whether or not it’s technically correct or not or has become such through use of the word for a long time, “revenue” is a business word.  That’s our word. That’s the word for sales – the free market exchange of goods and services between voluntary parties who are both made better off by the trade.  Revenue is something freely given for something of value freely received. Taxation is coercion and wealth confiscation by force.

At the very least, we should refuse to grant taxation legitimacy by calling it that.  Moreover, revenue is a “positive” word that government has hijacked.  When our goal is to reduce the size and intervention of Big Government, why would we ever concede to use words that might grant Big Government any semblance of legitimacy?

While taxation is an OK word to use when talking about the means through which Big Government finances itself, it is one that has become desensitized and still does not make strongly enough the central point that it is coercive.

So we propose to use the word “confiscation” instead.  When discussing our opinions with friends, family, employees and co-workers, we would say, “I think government confiscates too much,” or “Government confiscated 10% more of our private property this year than they did last year.”

“Earnings” vs. “Private Property”

Notice that in the statement above we used the word “private property” instead of “earnings.”

“Earnings” actually should be a pretty good word to use because it implies that what is taken from people is something they’ve earned, or labored for, but this word has also been used for so long that people have become desensitized to it.

How about talking about confiscation in terms of “private property“?

Also, how about talking about the confiscation of private property in terms of “productive people” or the “productive sector” funding the “unproductive people” or “unproductive sector”?  Big Government, after all, merely redistributes the confiscated property of productive people, so let’s call it what it is.

“Welfare” vs. “Dependency Programs”

We talk about Government “Welfare” programs in language that implies they help others “fare” more “well”. We even use terms such as “Charity” or “Entitlement” to talk about these Big Government Programs. While it is true that some of these programs can provide temporary relief to those in need, the full truth is that they often create permanent dependencies and reward dependents for inactivity and bad behavior.

Furthermore, private charities (which have to compete for donations) are far more efficient at helping those in need and suffer when Big Government confiscates more private property to itself, rather than allowing those resources to be employed by the more efficient and accountable charitable organizations.

So, instead of calling these programs “welfare programs,” we can call them by the more accurate terms, “Government dependency programs” or “Government handout programs.”

Then we could say things like, “Government dependency programs confiscated 10% more private property from the productive sector” or “Government handout programs saw their rolls grow by 5% in the last quarter.”

That helps others see the truth about Big Government.

Big Government not only uses words to justify its big programs, but it also selects words that can be used to silence dissent and opposition to the programs. Think about the “Patriot Act.” It has nothing to do with being a patriot, but by using that name anyone who opposes the act it can be labeled “not a patriot.”  Cunning.   If you oppose “No Child Left Behind” you can be labeled as someone who does not support helping children succeed.  Think about the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act.  Nothing was improved or modernized so much as spending was drastically increased – the biggest Government Dependency Program expansion in decades.  But if you didn’t support it you were labeled as one who didn’t want to improve and modernize Medicare, and therefore were against the well-being of the elderly.

And that’s why it’s important to do our best to not conduct the debate in the terms Big Government tries to force upon us.

Our movement must use the terms we choose, words that expose Big Government for what is really is, helping others to see clearly the forces that impinge upon their freedoms. As we do so, we’ll help undermine the legitimacy of Big Government and we’ll counteract its efforts to hijack and change the plain meaning of our language and then use it against us.

We would love to hear your thoughts about what to call various government agencies and practices in order to more accurately show what they really are.  For example, IRS “audits” are really . . . what?

In the comments below, please provide your ideas for how we can use language to expose Big Government for what it really is. Also, if you’re aware of other resources on the web that have attempted or are working on this project, please provide links to them below.

Please share this post with five friends, family members, employees or co-workers and then subscribe to our RSS feed and our newsletter, and join our Facebook group.

Seems that Massachusetts would be a good case study to help us understand how the federal program might go.

In 2006, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and the state’s legislature made Massachusetts the first state to forcibly require residents to purchase health insurance.  They called this an “individual mandate”.  They also required employers to make health insurance a part of employee compensation. They called this the “employer mandate”.  To encourage compliance with the two mandates, the state expanded its Medicaid program and created subsidies.

Even though the insurance program isn’t owned by the government, it effectively runs it.  Michael F. Cannon, director of Health Policy Studies for the Cato Institute, noted that although these individual and employer mandates operated entirely within the private sector, they “imposed what amount to new tax burdens, gave government the power to regulate all aspects of health insurance and medical practice, and subjected residents’ access to medical care to political calculation.” (Subscription required for linked article; much information from Cannon’s article is referenced below.)

Individual and employer mandates are taxes. If the government forces you to pay your money into its program, it’s a tax, whatever else they try to call it.  To bastardize Shakespeare, “A pile of manure by any other name would smell just as stinky.”

So what has happened in Massachusetts?  Insurance coverage has increased, surely.  But at what cost?  Based on the evidence we have today, costs have exploded while services have declined.  But those responsible for the plan are selling it as a success.

In a USA Today op-ed on July 30th, ex-Governor Romney penned, “When our bill passed three years ago, the legislature projected that our program would cost $725 million in 2009. At $723 million, next year’s forecast is pretty much on target. When you calculate all the savings, including that from the free hospital care we eliminated, the net cost to the state is approximately $350 million.”

Sounds like a roaring success, right?

Wait. Not so fast.

Thorough economic analysis requires that we look at all costs imposed on all economic actors – not just the direct costs to a state government – to determine if a program is successful.

It is true that 432,000 previously uninsured residents are covered under the Massachusetts plan, but ex-Governor Romney’s statement has omitted information about total costs that might give us pause.  There are two costs in particular, discussed below, that have created real burdens for real actors in the economy, but have not been made explicit by the politicians discussing the Massachusetts plan.

First, the cost to Federal Taxpayers who are on the hook for the Massachusetts Medicaid costs.  When a state spends money on Medicaid, the Federal Government matches its spending (on average 6 dollars contributed to a state for ever 4 dollars a state contributes), so when a state increases its Medicaid spending, it increases Federal Government spending on Medicaid.  This cost is born by Federal Taxpayers.  Thus, Massachusetts was able to shift some of the cost of its program onto the backs of out-of-state Federal taxpayers.  Since there’s no such thing as a free lunch, you and I are picking up part of the tab for Massachusetts’ “free lunch”.  Good thing the Federal Government will never run deficits, will have an eternally expanding tax base that they can tax at ever higher rates, and will be able to pay for these programs indefinitely, right?

Second, and more importantly, the budget numbers ignore the cost to the people who have the mandate to buy this insurance!  If the government confiscated this money directly in taxes and then similarly bought the policies directly on behalf of citizens, you’d see the true cost.  But by forcing people and employers to buy the insurance, the government rids itself of the nasty business of having to show the true cost of its programs in its budgets.  They also divest themselves of the need to enact politically unpopular tax increases.

Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation – in a study that happily touted the fact that government had managed to pull a rabbit out of its hat by forcing the true cost of its programs off its books -  conservatively estimates that “the added cost to Massachusetts employers for newly insured employees and dependents is at least $750 million – more than double the $353 million increase in state spending since health reform was enacted.”

When you include these two costs into the program – the cost to the U.S. taxpayer and the cost to individuals/employers through the mandate – the full cost in 2009 exceeds $2.1 billion.

So that’s the true “cost” of the program once you get rid of the accounting gimmicks.

Cannon points out that, seen this way, the true cost of covering the uninsured is about $6,700 per person.  Contrast that with the 2007 national average cost of an individual policy at $2,600, and you’ll see that you’re paying 157% percent more per person for coverage in Massachusetts.

Now, because only 40 percent of the cost of the Massachusetts plan appears in any government budget and is borne by the private sector, politicians take the liberty of calling it “low cost” and a “success.”

Common sense tells us that when resources are forced to go into one use by coercive means, they are not able to be used for a likely more desirable, more valuable, second use.

If employers are being forced to allocate a greater share of revenue to pay for compensation, those dollars cannot be used elsewhere, to build the business, expand operations, give raises, etc.  So there’s a hidden cost.  Since most employers look at the health insurance benefits they provide as part of the cost of total compensation, the only way they can continue to reinvest in their business at previous rates is to hold total compensation constant. In a mandated-coverage scenario, the only way they can do this is to cut wages or lay off workers.  Otherwise, they lower profit margins and stall economic growth and development, increasing the risk of being put out of business.  (We would just note that the current Federal plan forbids the lowering of wages to help pay for the mandated insurance coverage, so they only option is to lay off workers in order to keep total compensation costs constant – see HR3200 Page 147 Lines 14-19 for this prohibition.)

At the individual mandate level, if consumers are being forced to pay more of their income to support a government program, that’s less money they have to spend in the private sector on goods and services they would otherwise freely choose.

The government  is telling you what goods and services you *will* value.

The true outcome of mandates is to make those who don’t want health insurance but can seemingly afford it underwrite the cost of it for those who want health insurance but seemingly can’t afford it.

So it’s 157% more expensive to pay for health insurance in Massachusetts than the rest of the country.  We’d expect that the care received is at least 157% better, right?

Cannon writes, “In 2004, specialist wait times in Boston were already among the highest in the nation. Over the next five years, wait times fell in most U.S. cities and averaged 21 days, but in Boston they rose to an average of 50 days, even though Massachusetts has more doctors per resident than any other state.”

So wait times to see a doctor in Massachusetts are 138% longer than the U.S. average, even though there are more doctors people could see per capita than any other place in the U.S.  Sounds to me that when you hand out “free care” people use it more frequently, spiking demand and therefore cost (as Freshman Economics Class Supply/Demand Curves would have predicted).

So how has Massachusetts decided to handle this increase in cost?

By kicking people out of the plan.

Cannon writes, “When the Massachusetts legislature needed to trim $130 million … it canceled coverage for 30,000 legal immigrants — suggesting that politicians charged with rationing care will do so at the expense of those who are least politically powerful.”

Now that the *legal* immigrants are out, who is next in line to have their services cut?

And this is just year three of Massachusetts program.

Now, onto the Federal Government.  Currently the House plan mandates employer coverages.  It also forces employers not providing coverage to pay a tax equal to 8 percent of payroll, whether the company is profitable or not.

On top of that, uninsured individuals will be forced to pay a tax equal to 2.5 percent of their income.

Thus, Cannon notes, “An uninsured worker earning $50,000 per year with no offer of coverage from his employer would therefore face a 15.3 percent federal payroll tax, plus a 25 percent federal marginal income-tax rate, plus an 8 percent reduction in his wages, plus a 2.5 percent uninsured tax. In total, his effective marginal federal tax rate would reach 50.8 percent.”

Remember that promise the president made about no middle class tax increases?  Well, if you don’t, don’t worry about it.  He doesn’t appear to remember it either.

And all of that before noting this uncomfortable fact.  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that just a portion of the plan will cost more than $1,000,000,000,000 (yes, that’s a trillion, or a million dollars a million times) over the next decade, and more than that after 2019.

The scary thing is, there is some solid analysis that shows this estimate may be a Trillion too low!  Let’s not forget that, as Michael Tanner reminded the Wisconsin Assembly Committee on Health and Health Care Reform, ”In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990. In reality, the program cost over $110 billion that year. In 1987, Congress estimated that the Medicaid Special Hospitals Subsidy would reach $100 million in 1992. The actual cost exceeded $11 billion.”

In one case, Congress underestimated costs by 10 times.  In the other case they underestimated costs by 110 times!  How confident are you that this Health Care Proposal will only cost a trillion or two?

Universal Health Care Through Mandates, you have been weighed and found wanting.  Despite years of searching incessantly, Government still can’t find that free lunch they keep promising.

Perhaps a little magic is what we need.  Where’s Harry Potter when we need him?

To learn about real reforms for health care, including proposals for how to insure more Americans and lower costs, read Michael Cannon’s book, Healthy Competition: What’s Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It.

Having more people insured, protected against catastrophic adverse health events, is a desirable and valuable outcome, provided it is not enacted by coercive or confiscatory means.  There are right ways and wrong ways to go about helping people who do not have insurance.  Government mandates are not the answer.

Please share this post with five friends, family members, employees or co-workers.

Also, please subscribe to our RSS feed and our newsletter, and join our Facebook group.

Thanks,
SBABG.org

1. It takes away freedom and choice from hundreds of millions of Americans

I’d like to be able to choose my doctor, to choose whether or not I want health insurance, what amount I’ll pay for it, what my deductible will be.  I’d like to be free to determine the care I’ll receive, and not have a group of bureaucrats standing between me and my doctor.  But all that will soon end if the Administration gets its way.

You know how President Obama is telling you, “You get to keep your private health insurance?” Well, he’s only telling you half the truth.  The whole truth is that if you lose or leave your insurance plan, or if ever want to switch plans or change your employer, you cannot have private insurance and instead MUST go on the government plan. That means you get what the government decides to provide you, when they decide you merit it, and you have no choice.  How’s that for hope and change!

2. It’s expensive, bureaucratically bloated, and it won’t work.

In fact, costs will go up by a trillion dollars.  Isn’t the whole reason for taking on health care reform is because Americans believe health care is too expensive, not because they think we should impose socialist universal coverage?  Well, how can you increase costs by a trillion and look us in the eye and keep a straight face . . . this isn’t about health care costs, never has been.  It’s a about control.  And we all know our taxes will be going up to pay for this grand socialist experiment.  Oh, except for the Unions.

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are all headed toward bankruptcy, and we’re introducing yet another unsustainable entitlement program?  It’s like approaching a cliff in your car and hitting the gas pedal instead of the brake!

Check out how the bureaucracy will look under Obamacare.  Can you find the “Doctor” and “Patient” in there?

3.  It doesn’t require politicians to go on the plan, only the people they govern.

The health plan stinks so bad the politicians are giving themselves exemptions so that they don’t have to use it, but instead get to opt-out, while the rest of us don’t get this choice. (link updated)

I have no comment on this.  I’m just speechless.  When a cook won’t eat his own cooking, run from the restaurant.  The food might kill you, but it most certainly will put you in danger.  Same with this health care plan.

UPDATE: oh yeah, and it exempts Unions, too.

4. It funds controversial procedures that many Americans deem immoral and coerces all taxpayers to pick up the tab.

Right now, it’s set to fund abortions with tax dollars. Of all the things tax dollars shouldn’t fund, it shouldn’t fund these.  More than half the country opposes the legality of abortions and finds it to be wrong – and then to require them to take their hard earned dollars to pay for others to have abortions?  It’s just wrong.

5. It punishes small businesses.

Small businesses that don’t currently provide health care get an 8% penalty tax taken from their earnings.  Shelly Roche explains more about this in the clip below and more about why small businesses are set to take the brunt of the pain from this plan.

This is wrong and we’re going to stop it.

I’ve written my congressional representatives and explained that I oppose government run health care because

• it robs us of our freedoms
• it’s expensive and we can’t afford it
• it’s bloated
• it won’t work
• it exempts politicians
• it funds procedures I oppose on moral grounds
• it punishes small businesses

You can take action, too.  Write your congressional rep by using DownsizeDC.org’s tool to quickly get a letter sent (free) to your representative. And then sign Grassfire’s Petition which will be delivered within the next 48 hours.

Send this blog post to everyone you know.  Do something, anything, because you make a difference!

If US health care really is sick, then the government must think the cure is to kill the patient!  We can’t let that happen.

Image originally posted at PoliGazette

UPDATE: Be sure to check out our follow up post to this one: The Two Biggest, Fattest Lies in the Health Care Reform Debate.

UPDATE:  I have an exit questions to discuss in the comments.  Big Government keeps asserting that health care is a “right.”  Is health care a right?  A right is something that is owed you, that you are free to partake of.  You have the right to free speech, for example, if others owe you the space and freedom to speak, and you are free to speak if you choose.

Some people distinguish between claim rights and liberty rights – claim rights being something you have the right to take, and liberty rights being something you have a right to do.   Big Government says that Health Care is a Claim right (not a Liberty Right), something you ought to be free to HAVE (claim right)  not just something you ought to be free to PURSUE (liberty right).   In fact, under the current proposal the government is taking away your personal liberty right – preventing you from being able to pursue the health care you may individually want – in order to provide every one with a (now more limited) claim right.  They trade choice, freedom and quality for less-choice and less quality, but more “equal” distribution of health outcomes.

Note some key things here – the importance of “Others” in the provision of a right.  So, is health care a right?  Because if it is, then someone has the Obligation and Responsibility to provide the “right” so that you can be freely allowed to partake of it.  That’s another way of saying that someone has the can be forced (obligated) to give you what “rightfully” belongs to you.  Health care is provided only by oneself to oneself, or to oneself by other people.  When government speaks of a health care right, they are speaking of care provided to one citizens by way of another citizen.  So, who are these other citizens who have the obligation to provide health care?  How are they identified?  How will they be coerced?  Is the person who “provides” the health care the one who delivers the service?  Or is it the person who pays for the service?

Our take?  Health care is not a right.  It is one of many goods and services that free peoples can choose to provide to others if others are willing to trade for it.   No one should be coerced into forced labor providing any service – and that means indirectly, too; no one citizen should be forced to hand over a % of the fruits of her labors to pay the people who are providing and consuming the service.

Human beings are mortal.  They die.  We all will die.  It is a given that we’ll all suffer from poor health at some point in our lives and to varying degrees.  Our longevity will in part be determined by our body’s ability to maintain systems in optimal operative condition.  We have an obligation to OUR SELVES to care for our own bodies.  If we want others to help us maintain and repair our biological system, we have no right to coerce them to do it.  We can either learn that service ourselves, and provide ourselves with our own care, or learn to provide a service of value to others so that we can trade with them (and make them better off) in exchange for their service.

Please subscribe to our RSS feed and our newsletter, and join our Facebook group.

]]> http://www.sbabg.org/2009/07/20/the-government-health-care-plan-is-sick-and-its-bad-for-small-business/feed/ 26 http://www.sbabg.org/2009/07/09/cap-and-trade-is-devastating-to-small-businesses-and-their-customers-and-employees-help-employees-and-co-workers-understand/ http://www.sbabg.org/2009/07/09/cap-and-trade-is-devastating-to-small-businesses-and-their-customers-and-employees-help-employees-and-co-workers-understand/#comments Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:10:50 +0000 admin http://www.sbabg.org/?p=75 Today I sent the following email to our employees (I manage a small business based in Arizona).  I then shared it with everyone I know in my personal email list.   Please copy and modify the below text and share it with your employees and co-workers (and also your friends and family members) and encourage them to contact their legislators,. Polling shows that as soon as people find out what Cap-and-Trade will do to them, they oppose it.

–
To All:

As you know, I am constantly watching for legislation that increases our costs and reduces the purchasing power of our consumer.

Recently, Warren Buffett, who is an economic adviser to President Obama, brought to my attention that the Congress is trying to pass a “Cap and Trade” regulation that will, in his words, be a “regressive tax” on all Americans, meaning that it’s a tax that hurts the poor and middle class more than the rich.  This is not only a violation of the Administration’s pledge to not raise taxes on Americans making less than $250,000, but it will likely be devastating for our business and the greater economy.

Taxfoundation.org has provided a “Household Cap-and-Trade Burden Calculator” that allows you to calculate your estimated annual cost increase if Cap-and-Trade legislation passes (here).

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology calculates that the average family will find their annual costs increase by anywhere from $800 to $4,000 per year, and the Administrative costs alone (just the costs to pay the government bureaucrats who run it) are $175 per year per family.

I have used the Calculator to model the impact this legislation on our customers and on our business and I’m very concerned.  Because of these findings, I have been contacting our Arizona Representatives to notify them of the harmful  impact this will have on us and on the economy at large. You can use the Calculator to calculate your own burden and determine how it will impact your own standard of living.

The bill barely passed the House of Representatives (219-212).  The bill is now in the Senate, and while it currently looks unlikely to pass, it still may.  If it does, it will probably come back to the House for a final vote.

We are contacting Arizona Representatives who voted for Cap and Trade and registering our opinion with them.  If you agree that Cap and Trade is bad for you, your family, and your business, we encourage you to call and register your opposition as well (their contact information is linked below).

Please note that this is not a Republican/Democrat Issue.  Two Arizona Democrats, Ann Kirkpatrick and Harry Mitchell, voted against Cap and Trade.  Two Republicans voted against it as well.

Voted for Cap and Trade (We have called and registered our opposition)
Giffords, Gabrielle, Arizona, 8th
Grijalva, Raul, Arizona, 7th
Pastor, Ed , Arizona, 4th

Voted against Cap and Trade (I have called and thanked them and expressed my support; you can do the same)
Franks, Trent, Arizona, 2nd
Kirkpatrick, Ann, Arizona, 1st
Mitchell, Harry E., Arizona, 5th
Shadegg, John, Arizona, 3rd

Abstained from voting
Flake, Jeff , Arizona, 6th

You can also call President Obama’s office and remind him of his pledge to not increase taxes on people making less than $250,000, which, as his economic adviser Warren Buffett has explained, is a regressive tax on just those people Obama committed not to tax.

Office of the White House

IMPORTANT: You might also remind Legislators and the President that because other countries aren’t adopting this same legislation it will, in addition to costing poor and middle class Americans more money, likely also move American jobs overseas to countries that haven’t adopted Cap-and-Trade and Carbon output will remain the same (or increase, because other countries do not have the technological advances we have).

Best regards.
—
If someone asks you to explain Cap-and-Trade to them, just send them this YouTube video – an entertaining, educating, and catchy homage to what Cap-and-Trade is really about . . . a government money grab:

Going Green with Cap and Trade!

Please subscribe to our RSS feed and our newsletter, and join our Facebook group.

UPDATE: And another great resource to share with family, friends, employees and co-workers:

Most people dislike taxes but see at least some level of tax as inevitable, even necessary.  Surely some of our dislike for taxes is driven by the fact that it’s human nature for us to want to keep more of what we earn and to direct where it’s spent rather than abdicate that decision to another person.

Some of our dislike is driven by the fact that we inherently oppose wastefulness and don’t like to see our money spent on things we believe are inefficient or unnecessary. Some of our dislike comes from seeing our money spent on activities that we consider immoral or unethical.

And many of us dislike taxation because we believe it takes money away from producing things that people want – its best use – and instead is diverted into uses that are less valuable to society, and even are often used to prop up government-sponsored monopolies that the private market isn’t allowed to compete with, preventing us all from having a better quality of life.

But one thing is sure, the taxes you pay out of your earnings are dollars that you will not be able to spend to improve your life or reinvest in your business to create additional goods or services, increase your workers salaries, hire new workers, donate to a charity, or spend in your community.

Every dollar taken from your business is a dollar you can’t spend at another business, use to send a child to college, or donate to a charity.  Every dollar taken from you is a dollar you can’t lend to another business owner.

If politicians are truly serious about stimulating the economy, they will cut taxes.  Period.

America already has a deeply flawed tax system.  In fact, the Tax Oppression Index ranks America in the bottom half of Industrialized Nations, and our ranking is set to plummet further.

Taxation often sends a discouraging message, “You cannot be trusted to do with your money things that will make the world better off, therefore it must be confiscated and given to those who know better than you.”

Have no doubt that many politicians would like take everything you earn, and give you back whatever they feel is “just,” if only you’d keep working.  They’ve learned, though, that at some point the burden is just so great that many people finally throw up their hands and won’t work.

The federal government – and many state and local governments – treats the country as something it owns and allows you to use, so long as you pay your “dues.”  Don’t believe it?  Think you “own” your “property”?  Try not paying your property taxes.  You’ll ultimately lose “your” property.  That’s the “dues” you pay for the privilege of the government allowing you to “own” something.  The way they see it, they own the country, you rent from them.

Even your own body and labor.  They own it, to the tune of whatever they decide.  Sometimes they decide to own 10% of your work.  Sometimes 40%.  Sometimes 90%.

They claim you and everything you possess.

Taxation without your consent is theft, but what can you do?

What you can do is educate others to see the reality of our system today so that it can be reformed.

It starts with an understanding that government is not a magic institution that can wave its wand and turn us into a utopia, if only we feed it.  It’s an institution made up of people who are no more benevolent and competent than the people and businesses they take from.

It starts with an understanding that, yes, we can be trusted with our lives, our liberties, and our properties, and that we can use those resources we have earned better than those who have not earned them, but merely confiscated them from us.

It starts with an understanding that every dollar of taxed income incurs an opportunity cost, which is the choice you no longer have and can’t make because that dollar was taken away from you.

It starts with an understanding that competition lowers prices, an understanding that when a government carves out a monopoly for itself in any market, and does not allow for competition, we’ll all pay way too much for the “service” provided.

Here are some exercises you can use to teach your employees and coworkers about the “hidden costs” or “perils” of taxation.  Embedded in the message is a warning that if they value job security and personal prosperity, they should never vote for a tax increase on themselves or on anyone else.

Let’s look at a couple of simple profit and loss statements – two companies with identical performance, but one is not taxed at all, while the other is taxed at 40%.

Now, assume that every $30K reinvested each year creates one job.  This may or may not be accurate for your business, but it is for mine, so it will work for illustration purposes.

That’s a 65% increase in job creation.  That’s enormous.

That money could also be used to fund an employee retirement plan, or give employees a raise, or just have a big enough savings that during an economic downturn a company can weather the storm and not have to lay off employees.  That’s job security.

And, remember, the money we spend with other companies creates jobs there, too!  That cash is either reinvested in business, reinvested somewhere else, or spent in some local economy.

Now, what happens if your customers’ individual tax rate goes from, say 20%, to 0%?

They have more money to spend on your goods or invest in or loan to your business.

What happens if the rate goes up?  Just the opposite.  Resources and cash are diverted away from your customers (and potential customers).

Help employees understand that sales taxes reduce the amount of money customers spend with you.  If a customer has only $100 of discretionary income they’re willing to spend with you, $94 of their available income will go to you and $6 will go to the government.  That 7% extra you could have makes an enormous difference over the life of a company.

When a politician says, “I’m going to take from someone else – not you – to pay for my pet program,” we must all remember that other person who has been targeted may someday be – or already is – our customer.

We should never vote to take away someone else’s purchasing power.  Even when politicians are making Robin Hood arguments and saying they’re going to take from someone and give it to us, we must resist the temptation to burden others.  We should, “Do unto others as we’d have done unto us” and all that.

A tax increase is a freedom or choice decrease.  It takes away options from businesses and individuals.  A tax decrease is a freedom or choice increase that provides new opportunities to individuals and businesses.

Just as someone’s death leaves us wondering “what might have been” had they lived, taxation leaves us wondering what “might have been” had we been able to determine how our money would be used.

What children weren’t able to go to college because their parents were overtaxed?  What businesses were never launched, what discoveries were never made, what lives were not saved because of innovations never pursued, all because the resources and money that could have been used in those pursuits was confiscated?

Now you might be thinking, what about schools?  What about roads?  What about . . . ?  Those are valid thoughts.

While some may argue for the abolition of all coercive taxes, and others may oppose that or think it unrealistic, I think we can all agree that lower taxes is good for everyone.

And don’t underestimate how much cheaper and quicker private citizens can get things done when they are able to compete with government monopolies.

Let’s assume all tax is abolished.  What might happen?

Well, the dollars you were spending on tax for school funding, or roads, or downtown arts centers is now back in your pocket.  All the money you spent on any government service is now back in your pocket.

Will we all just go without?

No.

Any service provided by government that was of any value will find lots of people in the free market (who now have more money to invest and spend) who are willing and able to meet those needs.

That saved money will still be invested and spent, but it will now be at your discretion and by your choice.

Let’s also remember that if a service is received where the tax is paid, it more closely resembles free trade.

If a service is not delivered where the tax is paid, it more closely resembles theft.

Taxes paid should be paid where the benefits for paying them are delivered directly to those paying them.

Most people are willing to pay a local tax to support a local school where their children or the children in their community attend or to pave roads in the communities where they live.  At the local level these things are best worked out.

Most of us are not willing to pay a federal tax used to support abortion delivery services in Mexico  – whether we’re opposed to abortion or not -  or funding opera in Washington DC, or financially backing research on the sexual behavior of gay Argentines.

Last year many of us worked 2-4 months out of the year for the government.  That is, when the year was over the government took roughly 15-35% of our incomes.

The American Revolution was fought because of burdens far less than that!

We must educate our employees and co-workers about the benefits of low taxes (and of lowering taxes), of services rendered where taxes are paid.

You can use the examples above to show them how low taxes gives them job security and increases their earning potential.

When people are taught free market principles, they understand them.  They can see through the smokescreen that Big Government propagandists throw their way if you help them see through it.

If you own a business, consider showing your employees how taxation affects your profit and loss statement and how personal income taxes limit what people can spend with your business.  It will help them understand that high taxes directly affect them and limit their current and future choices and freedoms.  Help them understand the immorality of voting for a tax increase on someone else while exempting themselves.

Please share your ideas with us in the comments below.  Is this sort of educating feasible in your workplace?  Are people responsive to this message or apathetic?  What more can be done?

If SBABG.org were to prepare printable fliers or pamphlets that contain this information in a summarized form, would you be interested in distributing them to your co-workers or employees?

Please subscribe to our RSS feed and our newsletter, and join our Facebook group.