|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
----- Original Message -----
From: <A
href="" title=article@xxxxxxxxx>Mises Daily Article
To: <A href=""
title=article@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Mises Daily Article
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 8:14 AM
Subject: Economic Secession Won't Succeed
<A
href="">http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1204
Economic
Secession Won't Succeed
By Paul Birch and Gene Callahan
[Posted April 15, 2003]
<IMG align=right border=0
src="">Some freedom-minded people pin
their hope for liberty on withdrawing from an unfree world. In times of crisis,
such as wars and recessions, this idea gains popularity. We might refer to this
notion as "economic secession," borrowing the name from John Kennedy's <FONT
color=blue size=2><A
href="">article of the same
title." Despairing of advancing the cause of liberty in society at
large, they hope to be able to secure their own liberty anyway.
They may <A
href=""><FONT
size=2>put their trust in new computer technologies,
which they believe will let them hide money and economic transactions from the
taxman. They may hope to withdraw into some remote location and "<A
href=""><FONT
size=2>unplug from the grid." You can find ideas falling
broadly under the umbrella of economic secession at <A
href="">Backwoods Home Magazine, in the
writings of <FONT
size=2>Claire Wolfe, in the many books on <A
href=""><FONT
size=2>financial privacy, <A
href=""><FONT
size=2>encryption, <A
href=""><FONT
size=2>becoming invisible, and so on.
We don't mean to disparage someone who wants to move to the
remote countryside, encrypt his email, or set up a numbered bank account in
Bermuda. Such activities are not, in themselves, objectionable, and they may be
a good choice for some people. But we do wish to point out that they do not
solve the problem of the gradual erosion of liberty in our world.
We will not discuss the issue of whether it would be morally
sound to abandon our fellows and withdraw from the effort to improve human life
in society. We don't need to do so, because the attempt fails on its own terms,
for several reasons.
First of all, "economic secessionists" often seem to confuse
money with wealth. If they can hide their cash, they think, they can avoid
taxes. But money is only useful in so far as you can exchange it for the
economic goods and services you want to enjoy. In the long run you have to keep
your real wealth where you live, or transfer it there. Otherwise it's worthless.
Most real wealth is highly visible. The government of the place where you live
or spend your time will be able to see this wealth and gain access to it; and
thus can readily tax and regulate it. There is no sense in imagining that hiding
your cash will get you off the hook; the government will simply seize your real
assets for failure to pay taxes on them, as they already do today.
In many countries, governments have in recent years found it
convenient for political purposes to shift the burden of taxation away from
income taxes, towards sales and property taxes; and this at a time of rising
taxes overall. For example, in the past two decades, income tax rates in the
U.K. have fallen by about 30%, but local property taxes (rates and council tax)
have increased three or four fold. Thus we should not expect the taxation of
real wealth to prove problematic, even in those unlikely scenarios in which it
is supposed that the bulk of ordinary people's incomes could be successfully
concealed.
We would also point out that governments are increasingly
forming tax collection cartels; there are no longer any real tax havens that the
U.S. and other high-tax countries are not now bullying into submission. Ireland
has come under pressure from other E.U. states for having "too low" a corporate
tax rate. The U.S. <A
href="">is pushing the
I.M.F. and World Bank to crackdown on "money laundering." The O.E.C.D. <A
href="">has been
addressing the "problem" of countries that engage in "harmful tax
competition." Even Switzerland, with its traditional and much-vaunted banking
privacy, has caved in.
Economic secessionists may think that making it more expensive
for the government to collect taxes will reduce its incentive to do so. But
taxation is not, for the most part, about the government "making money,"
because modern governments actually consume only a tiny fraction of the total
tax revenue; rather it is about redirecting the spending of individuals, and
thus the collective spending of the economy, in ways predicated upon the
political goals of the regime.
Typically, the cost of collecting a tax amounts to no more than
a few percent of the revenue obtained; so the ability of governments to tax
would not seriously be impeded until tax collection became at least fifty times
more expensive (something the ready accessibility of real wealth makes most
improbable). Note, by the way, that in order to promote their political aims
governments may continue to collect particular taxes even when the
monetary cost exceeds the monetary revenue. The marginal cost of
collection, in cash terms, doesn't worry them.
People rarely go into politics or public administration in order
to make money. Many of them could become considerably wealthier in the private
sector (in purely pecuniary terms, though not in terms of what they actually
want). What they want is mostly influence—for a wide variety of motives,
both selfish and altruistic. They want to be (and in fact are) important—even if
that importance is often only that of being an important pain in the
neck.
That is why it is a mistake to think of government as primarily
concerned with collecting as much tax revenue as possible, practicable, or
profitable. That may be what bandits would do—but to governments taxation is
merely one of the tools with which society as a whole is constrained and
governed. Even the fact that government actions can prompt us to seek tax
shelters confirms their influence!
Not only are we unable effectively to escape having the
government tax us directly, we are also unable to escape the effect upon us of
government taxes on others. Introductory economics classes teach that although
the government may specify the legal incidence of a tax, its economic incidence
is subsequently determined through the market. As Mises <A
href=""><FONT
size=2>says: "It is the market, and not the revenue
department, which decides upon whom the burden of the tax falls and how it
affects production and consumption. The market and its inescapable law are
supreme."
Even if an individual citizen succeeds in concealing all of his
wealth and income from the tax collector, there will be others who cannot or
will not do so. Someone who is inclined to say, "Well, that's their problem,"
does not realize that he is paying those taxes as well. If the butcher is taxed,
he pays more for meat. If the airlines are taxed, he pays more to fly. If
capital gains are taxed in some countries, that will lower the returns on
capital in "tax havens," just as taxing corporate bonds lowers the return on
tax-free municipals. Furthermore, rearranging one's affairs to avoid or evade
taxes (the former is legal, the latter illegal) carries its own burdens, whether
in terms of actual costs, lower returns to capital, or foregone opportunities.
The costs of tax avoidance and tax evasion are
also taxes.
What would happen if the man in the street were able to hide a
larger fraction of his personal wealth or income? Would the government shrug its
collective shoulders and reduce its spending? Hardly. It would merely
assume that each taxpayer is hiding a similar fraction of his income
and increase all tax assessments accordingly. This would penalize honesty, and
in fostering anger against the tax evaders would in all likelihood encourage the
introduction of ever more draconian and authoritarian laws. And the tax revenues
would keep flowing just the same.
Many secessionist apologists are misled by the existence of a
small minority of people who operate on the black market or are otherwise able
to shield much of their wealth from direct taxation; or by the fact that most
people occasionally massage their tax returns a bit or pay tradesmen in cash for
a small consideration.
However, these transactions relate to only a small fraction of
the national product. The tax revenues "lost" are not large; indeed, the
argument above implies that there is no overall loss of revenue.
Governments know all about it—and don't care. It doesn't threaten them. Indeed,
the existence of black marketeers, tax shelters and tax evasion provides them
with handy scapegoats whenever they need—or desire—to increase taxes or impose
tougher regulations.
All in all, to make economic secession work we should have to
withdraw into autarky, foregoing the benefits of the division of labor. It is
doubtful whether Thoreauesque self-sufficiency is any longer practicable in
developed countries, for all but a minuscule fraction of the population.
Conceivably one could still flee to Siberia or the jungles of
New Guinea; and there live free from any burden of tax, other than the burden of
grinding poverty and social isolation from one's self-imposed exile. We will not
take exception to those who make such a choice. As Aristotle notes: "He who
would live without the polis must be either a beast or a god." In
either case, criticism would be pointless.
If we are unprepared to take so drastic a step, we would do well
to heed <A
href=""><FONT
size=2>Mises's words, which echo John Donne's famous
epigram that "No man is an island":
"Society lives and acts only in individuals; it is nothing
more than a certain attitude on their part. Everyone carries a part of society
on his shoulders; no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others.
And no one can find a safe way out for himself if society is sweeping towards
destruction. Therefore everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself
vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern;
the interests of everyone hang on the result. Whether he chooses or not, every
man is drawn into the great historical struggle, the decisive battle into
which our epoch has plunged us."
Paul Birch lives in Cowes on the Isle of Wight, England. He is a
freelance scientist and writer who has published many papers on space
colonisation. He is also interested in political philosophy and maintains
a website of his
writings. Gene Callahan is author of <A
href=""><FONT
size=2>Economics for Real People.
Send him <FONT
size=2>MAIL, and see his Mises.org <A
href=""><FONT
size=2>Daily Articles Archive. He delivered the
Henry Hazlitt Memorial Lecture at the Austrian Scholars Conference 9, March 13,
2003. Click <FONT
size=2>HERE to view the online video version
of his lecture.
<A
href="">[Print
Friendly Page]
<A
href="">Mises Email List
Services
<FONT
face=Arial>Join the Mises Institute<FONT
face=Arial> <A href=""
target=_blank>Mises.org Store<FONT
size=2>
<FONT face=Arial
size=1>Home |
<FONT
face=Arial size=1>About<FONT face=Arial
size=1> | <A href=""
target=_blank>Email
List | <A
href="" target=_blank><FONT face=Arial
size=1>Search |
<FONT
face=Arial size=1>Contact Us<FONT face=Arial
size=1> | <A href=""
target=_blank><FONT face=Arial
size=1>Periodicals |
<FONT
face=Arial size=1>Articles<FONT
face=Arial> | <A href=""
target=_blank>Games &
Fun<A href=""
target=_blank>News<FONT
face=Arial size=1> | <A
href="" target=_blank><FONT face=Arial
size=1>Resources |
<FONT
face=Arial size=1>Catalog<FONT
face=Arial> | <A
href="" target=_blank><FONT face=Arial
size=1>Contributions<FONT
face=Arial> | <A href=""
target=_blank>Freedom
Calendar
You are subscribed as: chaze@xxxxxxxxTo unsubscribe,
click here: <A
href="">http://mises.biglist.com/unsub.php/article/chaze@xxxxxxxxor
e-mail: <A
href="">article-unsubscribe-chaze=cvtv.net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
|