I know over several business owners whose tax bills would actually pay for a few additional employees or could be invested in more inventory or new product offerings.

The over taxing of the small business owner is killing growth and we need to be promoting policies that will promote the expansion of Profits, prosperity, and Liberty.

As far as tyranny and taxes go, the tyranny is borrowing from future generations (who have no say in the matter) to buttress your own standard of living. That’s what we’ve been doing for 50 years. This talk of the efficacy of targeted taxes is meaningless when our nation is facing national insolvency in 10-20 years.

“Controlling behavior via creating avenues of opportunity are completely different than controlling behavior via threat or compulsion.”

Leaving out the emotionally-laden terms . . . how so? Both tax breaks and tax hikes incentivise one course of behavior over the other by making one option more expensive, but the individual is still free to make their choice and pay either way.

I don’t see a prohibitive tax as “threat or compulsion” any more than I see a reductive tax as a “bribe”. There is a prohibitive tax on smoking. Nobody has threatened me to quit smoking (”it would be a shame if you had an . . . accident . . . getting your smokes” or compelled me (”do it! Dammit, I said DO IT!!”). If I want to keep smoking, and I’m willing to spend the extra cash, then I’m all set. Conversely, If I’d rather soend the extra cash by renting all my life rather than build equity in a stabe home, then I can do that as well.

@Rick:
I’ll certainly agree that taxes, in the philosophical sense, should not be used for anything other than revenue generation. But as a practical matter whatever involves money impacts behavior — right and wrong be dammed. Given that the tax code WILL modify human behavior (intended or not), should that impact be ignored or addressed? Simply saying “it shouldn’t” is a nice sentiment, but a bit naive. You raise a serious problem, then leave it with a simplistic “well, that’s a bad thing”. Yes. Yes it is. So what do you suggest?

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main

Generally speaking, the tax code should be used for the purpose of raising revenue and not trying to modify human behavior. If Republicans keep that in mind the next time voters grant them the power to govern, we’ll all be better off for it.

Very well stated Rick; I’m not a fan of either party coming up with new ways to transform our behavior either. Trouble is, when the Government (national or local) is paying certain bills, (ie, healthcare, schools), then they have an incentive to get these bills to be either lowered or paid for by the folks using them.

The taxes on cigarettes only started to rise drastically when the numbers of emphysema and lung cancer sufferers started to become a burden on the government. Therefore, it made economic sense for government to discourage smoking because dong so would reduce their cost in the long run. The (federal) deduction of interest on mortgages is a powerful incentive for families to buy an house and stay in a particular community, therefore supporting the local schools with their (local) tax dollars. Without the stability of all those homeowners stuck with 30 year mortgages, our system of local schools boards, teachers unions, and established education facilities would come unglued.

Perhaps we are too far along on many of these government interventions to turn back; nevertheless, we should all be very cautious of any new areas of government involvement. I was far more upset over the federal takeover of airline security (remember how the DHS didn’t exist 9 years ago?), than I am now about a contemplated increase in government involvement in healthcare from 50% to 60%.

By granting a homeowner the ability to write off interest paid on their home loan, isn’t the government encouraging a certain kind of economic behavior? Of course they are. And this is where I’m not sure Mr. Poulos’s thesis holds.

The thesis holds up just fine. The government doesn’t make you buy a house. Even if you have the house, it doesn’t make you write off the interest. Controlling behavior via creating avenues of opportunity are completely different than controlling behavior via threat or compulsion.