Hypocrisy

Nice to see Wal-Mart's hypocrisy on display:

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The world's largest retailer, Wal-Mart Stores, has been leading the attack against Internet giant Amazon.com for refusing to collect sales taxes on online purchases. But Wal-Mart doesn't always collect sales tax on items sold on its site, either.
~~~snip~~~
Wal-Mart insists it's not its responsibility to require companies that sell products through its site's Marketplace Retailers program to collect the tax, even though the billing and the credit-card transactions take place on Walmart.com.

State Board of Equalization member Betty Yee said she believes Wal-Mart does have an obligation under the California law that took effect July 1 to collect the taxes.

(emphasis mine)

I'm shocked, really I am. Wal-Mart isn't collecting sales taxes when it isn't required to by law. Which is as it should be. The problem is Wal-Mart's supporting efforts to require California sales tax collection by Amazon.com and other online retailers.

I'm growing weary of hearing that we should increase taxes on the "wealthy". Hearing wealthy people talking about increasing income tax rates for high income people and businesses.

Wait. Stop.

Income is not wealth.

The income tax is not a tax on wealth.

Income is the means by which one accumulates wealth (or, more accurately, capital.)

Which means: We're talking about raising taxes on the means of accumulating capital.

Taxes are a penalty on the taxed activity. Taxing an activity discourages that activity. You'll get less of it. So you'll get less income-generating activity (and less capital accumulation).

Capital accumulation benefits society. We want capital accumulation. People and businesses usually invest accumulated capital, starting new businesses, expanding existing ones, spurring economic growth.

A family living in Manhattan with an income of $100,000 (and no other capital to draw on) probably would not be considered wealthy (in fact, they'd probably be considered destitute.) The same family living in Arkansas might be considered wealthy. It all depends on lots of factors besides 'income'.

People who are already wealthy (that is, who have accumulated large amounts of capital over the years) will remain wealthy. Yeah, maybe they won't increase their wealth as quickly, but hey, they're already wealthy, right? The proposed tax increases won't reduce their wealth one bit, will they?

People and businesses who aren't yet, but are trying to become wealthy? Well, they'll just have to work a lot harder to get there. If they get there at all.

Which is kind of interesting, I think. Who benefits from increasing impediments to capital accumulation? Those who are already wealthy. Those who are at the top of the economic ladder.

Wealthy people (I'm looking at you, Mr. Buffett) advocating increases in income tax rates on high income earners is like kicking off people below you on the ladder. Or, Mr. Buffett's case, adding rungs and other impediments to the ladder now that he's reached the top and no longer climbing.

And, lest we forget, truly wealthy people like Mr. Buffett can afford to hire an army of clever advisers who will find legal ways to avoid paying some or all of those increased taxes. Those of us who aren't yet wealthy? Well, we can't really afford to hire a comparable army, can we?

Income is not wealth. It's a means of accumulating wealth.

Income is how you become wealthy.

Increasing taxes on high incomes stifles competition, makes it harder for others to become wealthy, via government policy.

And that just sucks.

More Links

Income: A meaningless, misleading, and pernicious concept

Link Love-In

Linked at Doug Ross. Thanks!

It's official. Google is Microsoft evil.

Brian S. Hall, writing in a recent BusinessInsider.com editorial, enumerates Google's many transgressions. Go there and RTWT.

My main quibble: Hall describes Google as a monopoly. It's not. It's very successful. While it dominates several markets, Google enjoys no legal protections that prevent competitors trying to take market share away.

Google has a variety of "unfair advantages", and can exploit those advantages to... well... Google's advantage. So it does. It has a responsibility to its shareholders to exploit those advantages, maximize profits and expand into new markets, in every legally permissible way. Hall describes some ethically questionable business practices, but nothing overtly illegal.

Regarding Google's propaganda, I've held the cynical view that:

• Their motto could be paraphrased as: Don't be evil -- until you're too powerful for anyone to do anything about it. Google's there now.
• Google will do 'evil' because it's big, successful, powerful, and a business. In today's popular culture, big, successful businesses are inherently evil. Evil is in the eye of the beholder.

Postscript

Well, another way to look at this: Google's really the Fat Elvis. Continue reading or add a comment»