Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Which policy sounds more statist to you?

rated by 0 users
This post has 10 Replies | 4 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
Posts 128
Points 2,945
Friedmanite Posted: Fri, Jul 13 2012 11:48 AM

Policy A: You must a pay a cent (a penny) to the government each year.  Failure to do so will result in your execution.

Policy B: You must pay 60 percent of your income to the government each year.  Failure to do so will result in your income tax going up by 5 percent the following year and possible jail time for not more than 6 months.

 

 

  • | Post Points: 110
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,389
Points 21,840
Moderator

I don'tlike hypotheticals, but I'll bite on this.

Two ways to look at this:

for myself I would prefer A,

but could I make a social decision with such extreme consequences?  I would hope not.  Which may lead me to pick B

"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann

"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence"  - GLS Shackle

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,612
Points 29,515

policy B is worse.

You work much harder for the state in Policy B.

One penny is less than one percent of one hour of work all year and what could the state do with only 300 million pennies per year?

"The Fed does not make predictions. It makes forecasts..." - Mustang19
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 391
Points 6,975

Are we paying in government zinc pennies? Or copper pennies?

Policy B is more statist. It is easier for everyone to pay and avoid the penalty. Meanwhile Policy B will likely not be fulfilled by many, especially the poor. In terms of victims Policy B is more statist. 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 639
Points 11,575
cab21 replied on Fri, Jul 13 2012 12:59 PM

a. 1 cent one year, who knows what the rate will be next year? the increase could be attached to any unrelated bill

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 170
Points 2,290
Bearchu. replied on Fri, Jul 13 2012 1:31 PM

Id say B. It would require more resources to keep track of who owed what percent, which would call for a larger state, making it more statist.

A on the other hand would require a person and a means to execute, less resources, smaller state, less statist.

ofcourse defining 'statist' based on the size of the state and/or the amount of resources it requires.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 297
Points 5,250
Rcder replied on Fri, Jul 13 2012 2:22 PM

Policy A is definitely less statist.  Moreover, such a low level of tax receipts would result in the almost immediate bankruptcy of government; it's hard to fund a warfare or welfare state on approximately $3 million annually. 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 170
Points 2,290
Bearchu. replied on Fri, Jul 13 2012 2:25 PM

That makes it more statist?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 297
Points 5,250
Rcder replied on Fri, Jul 13 2012 2:30 PM

Oops, I misread the question!  Policy B is more statist.  My bad!

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 304
Points 4,800
cporter replied on Fri, Jul 13 2012 3:25 PM

They are both equally statist. One may be more economically costly than the other, but that's a different question entirely.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 470
Points 7,025
Vitor replied on Fri, Jul 13 2012 4:20 PM

Policy A reminds me of Singapore. Small state, not a lot of regulation, but the few they have are imposed quite rigorously.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (11 items) | RSS