@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Yes I agree the form of the wealth is immaterial. It is the condition under which the wealth is given that is material.
Why is
that material? You seem to be suggesting that the only unconstitutional transfers of wealth are those that end up with the recipient
owning the benefit that is transferred. But why should ownership have any kind of constitutional significance if what the constitution forbids is the transfer of wealth?
The 'why' for me lies in two basic principles.
1) We should not be forced to work without compensation for the exclusive benefit of another. Such forced labor is the technical definition of slavery, however benign, and however it is implemented, it chips away at and erodes our liberties and freedoms. A little here and a little there may look and feel compassionate and/or practical and/or harmless and in fact may have little significant consequence. But all those little amounts add up and can result in very real consequence.
Tax freedom day is the day calculated as the date all our taxes would be paid if we paid them up front before keeping any of our income for our own use.
I think tax freedom day this year is slated for April 13; however that includes all tax payers including the most wealthy who are currently paying the huge lion's share of the taxes. During the Bush administration millions of Americans were dropped from the rolls or wound up paying little or no taxes so that the number of total tax payers fell to just over 50% of wage earners. As the less wealthy Americans were able to pay little or no taxes, and the more wealthy Americans assumed more of the burden, the average tax freedom date moved back from late April to mid April; however for most middle income Americans it is more likely to be somewhere in mid May.
In 1900, before government leaders learned they could use the people's money to increase their own power and influence, tax freedom day was in mid January for everybody.
2) The second principle is the corrupting influence that is automatic when government can use the people's money to curry favor and influence with individuals or targeted constituencies. It is corrupting both for those who assume the power to dispense the money and for those receiving it.
Quote:For instance, suppose the federal government lends money to a bank. The bank doesn't own the money that the government lends it, but it does enjoy a benefit if the government, e.g., charges a lower rate of interest than the bank could get from another lender. Is that a transfer of wealth from the government to the bank?
It is a legitimate function of the federal government to print and regulate the currency of the land, and therefore it is a legitimate function of government to regulate and monitor the institutions that are the direct recipients of the money the government authorizes. Federal deposit insurance is also a legitimate function of government as it absolutely promotes the general welfare and allows the people to be able to trust the system and not panic and disrupt it every time there is an economic blip.
It is not a legitimate function of the federal government to lend money to a bank for the exclusive use of the bank or for the purpose of enriching the owners of the bank or any individual associated with the bank. It is a legitimate function of the federal government to require banks to make a reasonable portion of deposits available for legitimate use of the people and to utilize sensible rules of lending and investment and not put the peoples' money at unacceptable risk.
The bank bailout of late 2008 was a sticky wicket because it was the government that essentially forced the banks to make risky loans and therefore bore a great deal of responsibility for the inevitable financial collapse. For that reason there was some justification for the bailouts but I'm not sure there was enough justifications. The banks themselves should have blown the whistle and exposed the corruption that was happening and refused to be a party to it. They failed in their responsibility too, and that makes it all the more galling that they would receive taxpayer dollars as a reward for that failure when in fact they should have been closed down.
Quote:ican711nm wrote:However, if I were given a share of that airport to own for my own benefit, then the transfer of a share of your taxes and the taxes of others--including a share of my taxes--would have constituted an illegal transfer of wealth. But, I was not given a share of that airport to own for my own benefit. So no illegal transfer of wealth occurred.
When my taxes go to pay for that airport in Texas, I'm financially worse off and you're financially better off. It doesn't matter that you don't own the airport. That's a transfer of wealth from me to you, isn't it?
I agree. If Texas needs an airport, Texas should build an airport. Unless necessary for the common defense, the Federal government should not be building airports in Texas.
The federal interstate highway system was started barely over a decade from the end of World War II, and was part of the overall plan to provide for the common defense. President Eisenhower correctly recognized that the German Autobahn was efficient and effective in moving troops and supplies around Germany and saw the benefit to having the same capabilities here. And because the highway sysem extended to and mutually benefitted all the states without prejudice, it was a legitimate federal project. A public airport does not mutually benefit all the states without prejudice and is therefore not a legitimate federal project.
