Dangerous Social Net

Here's how it works. Every month, as a business owner, I have to write a check for many thousands of dollars to the IRS. This is called with-holding. I am effectively a tax collector per force. If I do not collect it or do not pay it, it doesn't take long for the notice to come-- a threat against my life (time/effort) and property (money). The money then goes to the Federal Government where those who are more virtuous than I decide how it is to be used best.

This is income tax. It is a tax levied on the labor of the common man. Not a tariff on a foreign entity, nor a tax on a for-profit corporation. There is a difference.

My objection to social programs is the "who should administrate". I believe that the individual or even a business owner is better suited to do it. I believe there should be a social safety net, but the Feds are not competent or worthy to hold it. The neighborhood is competent and worthy to hold it.

A worker of mine chipped a filling but didn't have $150 on hand to have it fixed. I would have preferred to have that with-holding money to just write her a check. A worker of mine had a sinus infection. I would have rather just pulled money out of the coffers to take care of this.

Instead, as a group, we have to pay twice. We pay tribute to the Feds and we have to take care of ourselves.

The same regulation and heavy-handedness that is meant to moderate the wealth-gathering of huge corporations also hurts very small businesses like my own in a very real way. I call this "dolphins in the nets".

Again, I believe in the common man. I believe in the goodness of the Average American. If left to our own devices I believe we would do good on the whole out of our own free will and choice.

This interview with Ayn Rand brought to the fore of my mind a few things that have been percolating in my brain. I'm not saying it's right. But there it is. What do you think?

Be sure to listen to it twice or three times. It take a few takes to digest.





Hey Shawn,

Just a quick opinion on they video you posted a couple of days ago: I believe history have proven her wrong, at least in some points. Mainly, welfare and industrial regulation are not "bringing the world (or single countries for that matter) to disaster". My assertion is backed by the fact that the country I live in (Denmark) has one of the worlds most comprehensive welfare programmes - and yet has maintained the position as one of the most prosperous and rich societies. (Of course, with the recent and pending economic crisis/collapse no "fiat economies" are safe, but that is another matter.) I'm not saying the same extensive welfare system would provide the same benefits when implemented in other (larger) countries/systems. Personally I think the further the citizen is from his/her democracy, the more corruption and waste of Resources(tax) occurs. I resent the current movement in Europe towards centralized sovereignty in the EU and I whole-heartedly support your wish for a minimal federal government. In my mental Utopia the only legislation comes from a county/city-state level of power, and individual cities are absolutely free to implement whatever regulation they wish (You could have complete communism, extreme corporatism, fiat currency or not, etc.). On the other hands I believe it should be easier for every citizen to revoke the personal "contract" that we all essentially have to our government, and then move to a city that fits better, politically, culturally, and so on.

To return to the subject - I just wanted to point out that personal freedom is not necessarily in opposition to welfare politics.

Please keep the political inputs coming on your blog :-)

Regards,
LC