If you’re a libertarian or a small-government conservative, it’s quite likely you believe both these statements.
- Instead of picking winners and losers with special preferences and penalties, the tax code should be simple and fair, treating all economic activity similarly.
- Anything that reduces revenue to government is a good thing, and it’s especially good if the net result is to improve public safety by expanding gun ownership.
But what happens if these two statements are in conflict?
This isn’t a hypothetical question. As reported by Politico, there’s legislation in Louisiana to have a special three-day “tax holiday” on purchases of selected products, including guns and ammo.
Louisiana’s state legislature decided Tuesday to eliminate a tax holiday for hurricane equipment and school supplies, but keep one for guns and other hunting tools. In a 7-2 vote, the Louisiana Senate’s Committee on Revenue and Fiscal Affairs decided that for a three-day weekend at the beginning of September the state would eliminate its sales tax on firearms, ammunition, knives and ATVs. …Ultimately, three Democrats voted with four of their Republican colleagues to keep the tax holiday for hunting while eliminating the other two.
Is this a good idea?
I’m conflicted. As a fan of the flat tax, I obviously don’t want government to micro-manage the economy with back-door industrial policy in the tax code. And I’ve also written that tax holidays are a less-than-ideal way of reducing taxes. So this suggests that I’m against the Louisiana proposal.
But on the other hand, I’m an advocate of “starve the beast,” which means I support policies that will shrink the amount of revenue controlled by politicians. And I also strongly support the Second Amendment and want safer communities, so I like the idea of expanded gun ownership.
So how would I have vote if (Heaven forbid!) I was a Louisiana legislator?
I guess I would vote yes. Based on the limited information in the article, the proposal is a pure tax cut. So while I don’t like loopholes, I’ve also stated that I only want to eliminate such preferences if all the revenue was used to lower tax rates.
So the bottom line is that I would oppose the policy if the holiday was financed by an increase in the overall sales tax rate (similarly, I would support getting rid of the holiday as part of a proposal to lower the overall sales tax rate). But since such tradeoffs don’t apply, I would grudgingly offer my support (especially since I know the plan would offend anti-gun statists such as Michael Bloomberg).
P.S. We’ll add this post to my collection of libertarian quandaries.
P.P.S. Since we have a gun-related topic, I can’t resist sharing this example of pro-Second Amendment propaganda.
By the way, if you disagree with the message in this image, please take this IQ test for criminals and liberals and reconsider your views.
[…] A catch 22 situation on Taxes and weapons for Libertarians and Small … […]
[…] A Quandary on Taxes and Guns for Libertarians and Small-Government Conservatives […]
Is there any proof that gun ownership enhances public safety,other than statistically invalid anecdotes? I think that where I live (Santa Cruz area) there are too many guns in the hands of the wrong people.
BTW, I am a gun owner and have my own anecdotes as my first wife’s father saved his own life killing a robber in his liquor store (who had already shot him twice). I’m also an ER physician for over 40 years and have seen my share of the casualties.
Richard Hencke
For simple and fair, my vote would be on the original tax code from 1913. However, every year there were modest adjustments, based on flavor of the month or additional “need” for resources. Sometimes rates went up and sometimes down. Now we have to deal with 75,000 pages.
It could be argued that simple and fair relates only to income taxes, and sales taxes are another matter. OK. You run a retail store and let’s assume that each item has a different tax rate, based on the item’s goodness or badness, according to “the guy”. Do you still think sales taxes should be simple and fair, with exceptions?
I too think the tax code should be simple and fair, treating all economic activity similarly, but I do not see any particular dilemma. Isn’t any tax cut a good thing? Do you insist on ALL – or NO – taxes being cut at the same time? Aren’t all tax cuts (without increases elsewhere) simply steps in the right direction? So take those steps!
Remember to encourage the behavior you wish to encourage…
A temporary alteration to sales tax seems does not strike me as a significant moral compromise for someone who wants to see the tax code made simpler and fairer.
The reduction of funds to the state, and the time spent distracting the legislature from all the other things it might consider passing (incredibly few of which could possibly result in net gains to liberty) seems a sufficient win to support such legislation.
Dear Mr. Reed,
As you know better than I do, the first step that socialists do, it’s the subversion of words. I can’t understand how in the hell the true liberals like yourself can accept that the american socialists call themselves ”liberals”. In my opinion, every time and every true liberals like you hear these american socialists subvert the beautiful word of liberal, you should STOP THEM IMMEDIATELY and say you crooks STOP SUBVERT the word, you are NOT LIBERALS you are SOCIALISTS. That should be done ALL THE TIME AND IN EVERY OCCASIONS whatsoever.
thanks
Jeremias Antunes
There should be no quandary. If you want a tax code that is simple and fair, you cannot allow for deviation. If you allow a tax break because you like it, you open the door for a tax hike that someone else likes. The tax code should be interest group neutral.
[…] By Dan Mitchell […]