Governments must raise revenues to finance vital functions; we all know this and have very little choice in the matter as those decisions were made many generations ago (i.e. social contract theory). Life’s lottery has placed me squarely in the United States; it is a Land of Opportunity™, where economics and government are oft discussed and poorly understood. Because of this lack of understanding, the average citizen supposes our government does more than it can reasonably or legally be expected to accomplish.
I’m really discussing a particular affiliation here, and that affiliation is…all of them. Made you look.
Nevertheless, people of no particular political affiliation will discuss for hours the notion that tax cuts are expenditures to be paid for rather than a decrease in revenues. It’s all on the backs of the poor, dammit! Does this honestly make any sense to folks? Politicians sure take advantage of this notion.
It is because of this framing, that when we talk about tax cuts, it becomes very easy for those opposed to these cuts to paint them as something that has to be paid for—or more sinisterly, as some kind of cash grab for a favored class. It is as if it is the government handing over money, rather than the government simply not collecting it.
We can think of taxes as a form of government revenue, or sales, in the business sense. Reducing the price of one product does not mean that business is simply handing over cash to its customers—even if they run sales claiming as much. But that move can do a couple of things for that business. If the reduced price doesn’t affect the number of units sold, then you will see a reduction in sales. However, and this is the most likely scenario, that reduction in price is most likely going to increase the demand for that product and increase sales. A tax reduction can also work this way, depending on the category of tax. It can encourage investors to move money into the economy, and increase government revenue.
This all seems rather counterintuitive, but think about this: no decision is isolated. Everything has an effect on something else, and all decisions encourage or discourage other actors from making specific decisions. What do you think?
Outcomes often seem unjust. The poor are in a constant state of suffering, while the privileged are continually extracting wealth from them. This state of affairs has the appearance of a zero-sum game–where one takes, the other gives–and those that have continue to accumulate at an accelerating pace. The poor have no chance at success in these conditions.
I have yet to read nearly enough to justify throwing the name Bastiat around.
The upper class discovered the keys to success long ago. They learned how to manipulate the system, to extract wealth from it, and to use it to enjoy many privileges for generations. The primary tool, of course, is the control of the state and her resources. This is done at the expense of the middle and lower classes. As in all things, however, the example the upper class sets will eventually be mimicked.
They, the masses of the people, imitating the upper classes, cry in their turn for privileges. They demand their right to employment, their right to credit, their right to education, their right to pensions. But at whose expense? — Bastiat
If the poor were to obtain these privileges, who would be left to pay? There are no lower classes to extract from or to ultimately confer the responsibility of payment. Because the upper and lower classes are constantly in a battle over control of the state’s coercive powers, wealth and power are unevenly and deleteriously distributed amongst the people. The wealthy use their vast influence over the state to sate the desires of the poor–at the expense of long term outcomes–in an effort to reduce their desire to gain influence.
We could always turn the tables on the well-off; the privileges the poor seek could be easily gained from them through taxation. But, and this goes for all classes,
If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion.–F.A. Hayek
Wealth and resources are not obtained and distributed in zero-sum fashion. Value can be created, and in a level playing field, sans the coercive resources of the state, all classes of people can be free to obtain and create without issue. This is justice: freedom from coercion.