I was thinking of titling this post “The Thrilla on the Hilla,” but I wasn’t sure anybody would understand the Muhammad Ali-Joe Frazier reference.
All you really need to know is that I will be debating Kevin Williamson of National Review next Monday on the topic: “The No-Tax-Hike Pledge: Does It Help or Hurt the Fight for Smaller Government?”
This event will be at Noon, on Capitol Hill, and is open to the public and free of charge. But you need to register today, and I’m told there is a midday deadline.
Kevin will be arguing that a no-tax-hike position is misguided, and he has already thrown down the gauntlet. Since I represent the side of truth and justice, I will hold my fire and try to save his soul on Monday.
Seems to me the tax hike versus tax cut argument is theater. The real question should be, “which economic system, free markets or central planning, has the track record for encouraging economic growth?” One does and one doesn’t, we should adopt the policies of the one that does, not only with regard to taxation but entitlements as well.
By the way, if he uses the phrase, “Redistribute wealth” would you please inform him that the term is misleading and we shouldn’t use it. It gives an incorrect impression to the poor. The term we should insist on using is “Spread the Misery.”
Looking forward to watching this debate when it becomes available on the internet.
If Dr Mitchell is open to debate pointers, I hope he will spend a minute or two on the question that tax rises are not neutral.
Anarcho-libertarians will doubtless argue that taxes of any sort are coercive, but granting for a moment (i) that some level of government is required to maintain an orderly system for markets to operate (as shown in Rahn curve analysis) and (ii) that past a certain point taxes positively discourage innovation and business start-ups (as shown by Laffer curve analysis) tax hike advocates — even conservative ones — seem to believe that a tax increase that does not rise toward the negative Laffer slope act as a mere damper and not as a disincentive to economic activity (allowing for a grey area where business are ‘unmindful’ of increases to where they become very much ‘mindful’) and that it will still be beneficial for enriching the government’s coffers.
This is patently false, isn’t it? Or if not, what am I missing?
christ and oden! Are there still people so stupid as to think raising taxes in a recession is a good idea?
Entitlement programs are the first problem. Thr prescirption program was the last one added, so eliminate it completely. Some real simple trimming can be done to SS – eleminate all the disabilty payments. It won’t solve the problem, but it gives us a few extra weeks to do it and it’s something done sooner than later. (I’m also sick of the lawyer commercials telling you they can get you SS disiblity benefits.)
Then line up another entitlement program for elimination. Medicare? No, at least that is mostly aimed at people who worked their whole lives. Eliminate Medicaid. I’m sure it’s rife with fraud and studies are showing it’s not doing anything on long term health problems anyway.