• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Taxes for revenue are Obsolete

JP Hochbaum

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
4,456
Reaction score
2,549
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
"sometimes a document emerges that categorically exposes all these myths that economists perpetuate. Unfortunately, these documents get very little attention when they were originally published and then lie buried somewhere as the mainstream economists continue with business as usual.

In the last year of World War II, the then Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, one Beardsley Ruml addressed the American Bar Association.

You can access Guide to the Beardsley Ruml Papers 1917-1960 at the University of Chicago Library.

Historical records suggest the speech was a non-event and “attracted then less attention than it deserved”. In January 1946, the speech was published in the periodical American Affairs and you can see the full text HERE.

The title of the speech (and article) was Taxes for revenue are obsolete and I bolded this to make sure it resonated in your consciousness for a little time. Read it again – taxes for revenue are obsolete."

"Final freedom from the domestic money market exists for every sovereign national state where there exists an institution which functions in the manner of a modern central bank, and whose currency is not convertible into gold or into some other commodity.

The United States is a national state which has a central banking system, the Federal Reserve System, and whose currency, for domestic purposes, is not convertible into any commodity. It follows that our Federal Government has final freedom from the money market in meeting its financial requirements. Accordingly, the inevitable social and economic consequences of any and all taxes have now become the prime consideration in the imposition of taxes. In general, it may be said that since all taxes have consequences of a social and economic character, the government should look to these consequences in formulating its tax policy. All federal taxes must meet the test of public policy and practical effect. The public purpose which is served should never be obscured in a tax program under the mask of raising revenue."

Ruml offers four insights into the purpose of taxation:

Federal taxes can be made to serve four principal purposes of a social and economic character. These purposes are:

1. As an instrument of fiscal policy to help stabilize the purchasing power of the dollar;

2. To express public policy in the distribution of wealth and of income, as in the case of the progressive income and estate taxes;

3. To express public policy in subsidizing or in penalizing various industries and economic groups;

4. To isolate and assess directly the costs of certain national benefits, such as highways and social security.

Taxpayers do not fund anything | Bill Mitchell – billy blog
 
taxes are a way to keep our society running. even doing away with the federal government/federal taxes still leaves state/local taxes, and those smaller entities would essentially be feudal fiefdoms. back to the middle ages! what a great idea. no thanks.
 
taxes are a way to keep our society running. even doing away with the federal government/federal taxes still leaves state/local taxes, and those smaller entities would essentially be feudal fiefdoms. back to the middle ages! what a great idea. no thanks.
You should learn to click on the links provided.

In that link that you could have easily clicked on it specifically mentioned that state local governments still need to tax.
 
You should learn to click on the links provided.

In that link that you could have easily clicked on it specifically mentioned that state local governments still need to tax.

look up what a feudal society is, they still have taxes.
 
taxes for revenue are obsolete.

So does this mean that taxes may be neccesary for reasons other than revenue?

Like for social engineering purposes?
Sin (excise) taxes to discourage harmful behavior
Taxation for the purpose of reducing income disparity (redistribution and as a penalty for acquiring more than a reasonable amount of income or property)

Or even for other economic reasons?
like to keep inflation in-check by avoiding the need to printing money in such a volume as to cause inflation
 
So does this mean that taxes may be neccesary for reasons other than revenue?

Like for social engineering purposes?
Sin (excise) taxes to discourage harmful behavior
Taxation for the purpose of reducing income disparity (redistribution and as a penalty for acquiring more than a reasonable amount of income or property)

Or even for other economic reasons?
like to keep inflation in-check by avoiding the need to printing money in such a volume as to cause inflation

Yep, I posted them in the OP:

Federal taxes can be made to serve four principal purposes of a social and economic character. These purposes are:

1. As an instrument of fiscal policy to help stabilize the purchasing power of the dollar;

2. To express public policy in the distribution of wealth and of income, as in the case of the progressive income and estate taxes;

3. To express public policy in subsidizing or in penalizing various industries and economic groups;

4. To isolate and assess directly the costs of certain national benefits, such as highways and social security.
 
So does this mean that taxes may be neccesary for reasons other than revenue?

Like for social engineering purposes?
Sin (excise) taxes to discourage harmful behavior
Taxation for the purpose of reducing income disparity (redistribution and as a penalty for acquiring more than a reasonable amount of income or property)

Or even for other economic reasons?
like to keep inflation in-check by avoiding the need to printing money in such a volume as to cause inflation

best reason is bolded.if money is printed instead of taxed,it releases more money into circulation,which lowers its value and demand.this in turn leaves you with more money but its value is worth less so no gains are made governmentwise unless something other than gdp backed the value.if you read a gdp chart off of gold value in grams of gold under a set value,since 2001 our gdp has skyrocketed especially under the housing boom and 2 wars,but true gdp is lower now than it was during the depression.

besides fiscal policy controlling inflation to normallevels,one theory on the rich hoarding money is that it is to keep themoney out of circulation,to combat inflation which makes their money hold more value.
 
Yep, I posted them in the OP:

Federal taxes can be made to serve four principal purposes of a social and economic character. These purposes are:

1. As an instrument of fiscal policy to help stabilize the purchasing power of the dollar;

2. To express public policy in the distribution of wealth and of income, as in the case of the progressive income and estate taxes;

3. To express public policy in subsidizing or in penalizing various industries and economic groups;
Oops, you sure did. I guess I should learn to read also.

But I did a fairly decent job of thinking those things up off the top of my head, my list matched your list almost identically.
 
Last edited:
Oops, you sure did. I guess I should learn to read also.

But I did a fairly decent job of thinking those things up off the top of my head, my list matched your list almost identically.

It sure did :)/ It all just makes too much sense right?
 
Errr...let me see if I can get this straight. In this thread ... you argued that libertarian economics is a farce...and now in this current thread you're arguing that we can get rid of the income tax?

The "minor" detail that you forgot to mention in this current thread is that both mainstream and libertarian economists agree that chartalism is a farce.

So I can't help but be curious...what's your stance on allowing taxpayers to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to? Is pragmatarianism a farce?
 
Errr...let me see if I can get this straight. In this thread ... you argued that libertarian economics is a farce...and now in this current thread you're arguing that we can get rid of the income tax?

The "minor" detail that you forgot to mention in this current thread is that both mainstream and libertarian economists agree that chartalism is a farce.

So I can't help but be curious...what's your stance on allowing taxpayers to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to? Is pragmatarianism a farce?
Of course mainstream (neoliberals) and libertarians think chartalism is a farce.

But that doesn't change the fact that functionally speaking taxes for revenue are obsolete.
 
Of course mainstream (neoliberals) and libertarians think chartalism is a farce.

But that doesn't change the fact that functionally speaking taxes for revenue are obsolete.

Therefore...we should just get rid of income taxes?
 
I am in support of a land value taxation system. So yes no more income tax, it is a massive drain on AD.

So you think it's possible for government planners to know the optimal level of funding that a public organization should receive?
 
So you think it's possible for government planners to know the optimal level of funding that a public organization should receive?

There are indeed some wasteful projects and planning. But that is also true for the private sector as well.
 
Therefore...we should just get rid of income taxes?

I'm certainly in favor of getting rid of income taxes on income from actually working. I have never understood why we want to penalize someone for being productive.


But I do recognize that there are reasons why we can't eliminate taxes totally, for the reasons that were also stated in the OP.
 
There are indeed some wasteful projects and planning. But that is also true for the private sector as well.

That wasn't my question though. My question was whether government planners can know the optimal level of funding that a public organization should receive. No private organization determines how much revenue it receives...that's entirely up to consumers/donors.
 
So you think it's possible for government planners to know the optimal level of funding that a public organization should receive?

I do. I don't really think that it is possible for for an individual who has a full time job doing whatever it is that we do to manage our government. Thats why we have elected officials and why they appoint and hire people just to do those government managerial jobs.
 
That wasn't my question though. My question was whether government planners can know the optimal level of funding that a public organization should receive. No private organization determines how much revenue it receives...that's entirely up to consumers/donors.

No one knows anything like that. They just make their best estimates and educated guesses.

I would expect that some well educated government planner who has a full time job can probably make a more informed decision as to government spending that the cashier at the grocery store can. I don't want the floor sweeper in Walmart to be personally setting government policy about anything.
 
I do. I don't really think that it is possible for for an individual who has a full time job doing whatever it is that we do to manage our government. Thats why we have elected officials and why they appoint and hire people just to do those government managerial jobs.

So if government planners can know the optimal level of funding that public organizations should receive...then can they also know the optimal level of funding that private organizations should receive?
 
So if government planners can know the optimal level of funding that public organizations should receive...then can they also know the optimal level of funding that private organizations should receive?

No, I said that they don't know, but that they probably can make a better decision that the guy who changes my oil. And no, they shouldn't be involved with making private companies business decisions.

This tread is going a little off topic and I don't want to derail it, so I am going to stop discussing this issue. I think that we have had this discussion in a few different threads before.
 
That wasn't my question though. My question was whether government planners can know the optimal level of funding that a public organization should receive. No private organization determines how much revenue it receives...that's entirely up to consumers/donors.

Do businesses not put budgets together to meet what revenues they expect?
 
No, I said that they don't know, but that they probably can make a better decision that the guy who changes my oil. And no, they shouldn't be involved with making private companies business decisions.

So government planners can make the best decision regarding exactly how much funding the EPA should receive...but they can't make the best decision regarding exactly how much funding EZ Lube should receive. If government planners can make better decisions than consumers...then why wouldn't we want them to be in charge of determining exactly how much money EZ Lube should receive?

This tread is going a little off topic and I don't want to derail it, so I am going to stop discussing this issue. I think that we have had this discussion in a few different threads before.

Suit yourself but I don't see any value in discussing taxes without discussing the efficacy of using stated preferences to determine how our society's limited resources are used.
 
Back
Top Bottom