Soak-the-Rich Taxes Soak Everyone | Jim Powell | Cato Institute: Commentary

Soak-the-Rich Taxes Soak Everyone | Jim Powell | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'Soak-the-rich taxes are for suckers. President Obama, like so many politicians who came before, is singing the happy song that only millionaires and billionaires will have to pay. But runaway spending — whether because of war or entitlement programs — drives government to extract revenue from people with much lower incomes, like the nearly half the population that pays no federal income tax now.'

Soaking the Rich Is Not Fair | Jeffrey A. Miron | Cato Institute: Commentary

Soaking the Rich Is Not Fair | Jeffrey A. Miron | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'Luck undoubtedly explains some income differences, but this is not the whole story. Many trust fund babies have squandered their wealth, and inborn skill or talent means little unless combined with hard work.

But even if all income differences reflect luck, why are government-imposed "corrections" fair?'

'This claim has an element of truth: some wealth results from illegal acts, and policies that punish such acts are appropriate.

But most inappropriate wealth accumulations results from bad government policies: those that restrict competition, enable crony capitalism, and hand large tax breaks to politically connected interest groups. These differences in wealth are a social ill, but the right response is removing the policies that promote them, not targeting everyone with high income.'

The Capitalist's Conundrum - Stephen Mauzy - Mises Daily

The Capitalist's Conundrum - Stephen Mauzy - Mises Daily: 'But what business capital should you own? Amazing how this simple query is swept to the corner by college professors and economists who proselytize the need to lower interest rates to stimulate business demand. Where to invest is a trifling, if not meaningless, point. To the nincompoop any investment is a good investment.

To the actual investor, where to invest and what to own is the supreme question; business capital in the wrong hands is as much liability as asset.'

Steve Jobs and the Beautification of Capitalism - Jeffrey A. Tucker - Mises Daily

Steve Jobs and the Beautification of Capitalism - Jeffrey A. Tucker - Mises Daily: Every entrepreneur in society deserves such praise, and it is also correct to single out Steve Jobs, because his company seemed to push civilization a bit further down the road to progress with mind-blowing consumer products that allow us to do everything from play musical instruments to video talk with people halfway across the world in real time. Apple has dramatically improved our lives — in the same way that all capitalistic ventures have but more conspicuously so.

Still, there's something odd here. Fast food, chain stores, and sneaker companies are usually subjected to derision and envy-ridden hate in a culture that has too little appreciation for business success. Just look at the amazing attack campaigns directed against Walmart for the crime of making all great things available to just about everyone at low prices. And don't get me started on the daily blizzard of attacks on the most loved and most hated of all hamburger joints.

Growing the Economy for Dummies | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary

Growing the Economy for Dummies | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'Chile was the first nation in the Americas to adopt a traditional social security system, way back in 1925 — 10 years before the United States. By the late 1970s, however, the Chilean system was running out of money despite higher and higher taxes. The young labor minister, Jose Pinera, who has a doctorate in economics from Harvard, led a fundamental reform of the system from a government-defined benefit system to a private-account defined-contribution system, which is owned by the workers.

The Chilean system has been so successful during the past 30 years that it has been copied by more than 30 countries, including Sweden and Australia. Chileans retire with far more wealth than the average American, despite the fact that Chile is just a low-middle-income country. In both Chile and the United States, employers are required to set aside a little more than 12 percent for the pension program, but in Chile, someone with the same earnings as an American will be getting $55,000 as an annual pension, while the American, working the same number of years, just gets $18,000.'

Yes, It Is a Ponzi Scheme | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary

Yes, It Is a Ponzi Scheme | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'Of course, Social Security and Ponzi schemes are not perfectly analogous. Ponzi, after all, had to rely on what people were willing to voluntarily invest with him. Once he couldn't convince enough new investors to join his scheme, it collapsed. Social Security, on the other hand, can rely on the power of the government to tax. As the shrinking number of workers paying into the system makes it harder to continue to sustain benefits, the government can just force young people to pay even more into the system.

In fact, Social Security taxes have been raised some 40 times since the program began. The initial Social Security tax was 2 percent (split between the employer and employee), capped at $3,000 of earnings. That made for a maximum tax of $60. Today, the tax is 12.4 percent, capped at $106,800, for a maximum tax of $13,234. Even adjusting for inflation, that represents more than an 800 percent increase.'

A World Spinning Backward | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary

A World Spinning Backward | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'As much as Americans want to believe that everyone else would be like Americans if given a chance, the so-called Arab Spring so far has matched a desire for political liberation with a preference for religious intolerance. Tyranny may end up being transformed rather than eliminated.'

'restrictions on religion are particularly common in countries that prohibit blasphemy, apostasy or defamation of religion. While such laws are sometimes promoted as a way to protect religion, in practice they more often serve to punish religious minorities whose beliefs are deemed unorthodox or heretical.'

We're From the Government. We're Here to Help. by Ron Paul

We're From the Government. We're Here to Help. by Ron Paul: 'Victims of disasters should get any and all help possible, and there is virtually no limit to the generosity and compassion of good American people after devastation hits. One only need to remember the outpouring after Katrina to know this is true. FEMA, however, did more to get in the way of relief than to actually provide and facilitate it. The examples are numerous. When the call was put out for volunteer firefighters, they volunteered by the thousands. It was FEMA, for reasons of control and bureaucratic ineptitude, who made sure they were not, in fact allowed to actually help. When a group of firefighters arrived from Houston, instead of being put immediately on the job, they were told to sit around and wait. After waiting for two days doing nothing, they were simply sent home. One thousand volunteer firefighters were sent to Atlanta to undergo sexual harassment training while fires actively raged in the city. The ones that remained through this stupidity were sent to escort the president around or to distribute fliers instead of putting out fires. Computer engineer Jack Harrison was told his skills were needed to rebuild technological infrastructure. After being given the runaround for about two weeks, he was misallocated as head of security on the cruise ship FEMA had leased, when he should have been using his skills to help. All manner of help was turned away or mismanaged by FEMA while people suffered and waited. Even the Red Cross had its hands tied by FEMA.'

'Compare the stories of two flotillas – one after 9/11 and one after Katrina. Within an hour of the 9/11 attacks, the largest boatlift in history was organized spontaneously by locals who saw an immediate need and responded immediately. Over 500,000 terrified New Yorkers were taken off the island by ferries, tugboats, pleasure crafts, fishing boats and barges when all other access points had been shut down. A similar flotilla attempt was privately organized after Katrina. 500 boats caravanned to New Orleans to rescue patients from hospitals that were out of supplies and desperate. Unfortunately, FEMA had taken over by then and they were turned away, empty, while the patients languished, still stranded.'

Back to School, Back to the Front Lines | Neal McCluskey | Cato Institute: Commentary

Back to School, Back to the Front Lines | Neal McCluskey | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'To be ground-zero in sociopolitical warfare, of course, isn't why any school district is here. Nonetheless, it is inevitably what happens when you force diverse people to support a single system of government schools.

Thankfully, there is a way out: Give parents control of education funds and let them choose options commensurate with their values offered by liberated educators. Instead of making people go to war, let them go in peace.'

Why Grover Norquist Is Wrong about Taxes | Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren | Cato Institute: Commentary

Why Grover Norquist Is Wrong about Taxes | Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'To complain about federal handouts — as ATR tends to do — while supporting tax breaks for the ethanol production — a position initially taken by ATR this spring — is to make a fetish of form over function.'

' First, holding the line on taxes constrains only one of the four tools (taxes, tax deductions, spending without taxation, and regulation) used by government to alter economic outcomes. As long as you expand government in some other way, you live up to your pledge to Grover. Second, the charge that eliminating a tax break is the same as raising a tax (and thus, verboten) turns the alteration of economic outcomes via the tax code into an actual conservative virtue. Third, it encourages less transparent exercises of government power and, thus, makes it harder to police government action. Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, it allows politicians to falsely advertise themselves as partisans of limited government even when they are busily expanding government.'