Taxes Affect Behavior?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-03-27-tobacco-tax_N.htm?csp=34

When we hear talk about raising corporate taxes the two sides always argue over whether those taxes will impact job loss or corporate behavior. I always hear the liberal side say that corporations need to "pay their fair share". But we all know that corporations don't pay taxes, they pass the cost on to consumers or change their behavior to avoid the tax altogether.

For all the posturing about taxes not impacting behavior when it's corporations in the crosshairs, when it's a sin tax, behavior is always touted as one reason to pass the tax.

Here we see the continuation of sin tax being used to fund good things. It's a win-win because it reduces bad behavior and funds good programs. The problem is that these good programs will be in trouble if the behavior actually decreases in the future.

Either way I see the liberal argument losing. If the behavior reduces then it proves that taxes on a good or service reduces the demand for that good or service. If behavior doesn't change then one of the primary reasons for passing a sin tax is proved wrong.

Perspectives in Democracies

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-03-17-madagascar-president_N.htm?csp=34

I confess that I have not followed the rivalries of the parties in Madagascar. In that respect I am an "ugly American" who is apparently unconcerned with affairs outside my bubble. But I noticed this article and was struck by how it contrasts Madagascar and, presumeably other democratic nations, with the United States.

Our system of government is much maligned by everyone it seems. On the radical right you can hear the cries of "take back our country" and even in some more remote corners the call to arms. On the loony left are often similar calls to overthrow our government using various means of force. But these remain on the fringe and our system as a whole continues to operate. One side is less grumbly for a time, then the other side takes a turn.

For the most part we have an understanding that although our system has flaws and we are free to enumerate them publicly, we have a "gentleman's agreement" that when we grumble, we won't take up arms but rather wait 4 years. Of course we can all forsee the possibility of things going too far and falling to pieces in a cascade of anarchy but we don't really believe that will happen.

What strikes me about the Madagascar example is that we see the result of one side rising up to overthrow the other. Although it's somewhat more peaceful than other coups, there are military on both sides and if Ravalomanana did not resign we don't know the extent that Rajoelina was willing to go.

It adds some perspective because as close as the elections were in 2000 and 2004, no one even counted as possible that we would see bullets fly. As contentious as the 2008 election was we never even fathomed the option of military involvement. Even when our officials misuse public funds, they are prosecuted, not executed.

We may have some real turkeys in office at any given time, but they are OUR turkeys, rightfully (we assume) voted into office by a majority of citizens (we assume) who were properly registered to vote (we assume) and we follow them. At least for a time.

Spend Now to Spend Later

So, congress might have to shut down government if this spending bill didn't pass (it did). Obama will be mad if he signs it with all the pork (he did). The people will be forgotten and left out on this one (we were).

This emergency spending bill had to be passed quickly so there's no time to post it on the web for 2 days as Obama promised bills would be. There's no time to cut the pork as Obama promised to do. There's no way Obama will veto either. Seems there's not a situation in Washington that's not a damn emergency these days.

That's ok, next time when things slow down a little. Let Obama catch his breath. He's only been in office for...

Bullshit. He needs to put on his big boy pants and start keeping his word.