Posted by
CKHustler on Friday, January 23, 2009 2:23:47 AM
The Utility of the Union In Respect to Revenue
From the New York Packet. Tuesday, November 27, 1787.
HAMILTON
Federalist Paper #12
Looking into Revenues...this should be interesting.
"It has been found in various countries that, in proportion as commerce
has flourished, land has risen in value. And how could it have happened
otherwise?"
Well, the CRA bill did just that. Here is a case where the government created a bad regulation and caused a crisis. If left alone, the market will do just as Hamilton says here. When a government regulation comes in and skyrockets land prices, what did anyone think would happen? Sooner or later people will not be able to afford their housing and bam, you have a burst of the housing bubble. I did not have the ability to see this happen as I was only 8 when Clinton signed that bill, but I am surprised that our leaders did not see this coming for the past decade. Many people had invested in land instead of stocks, bonds, etc and when the bubble went, so did lots of peoples money. No liquidating that land anymore! It is amazing how common sense alludes democrats on an issue such as this.
"The ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned, in a
great degree, to the quantity of money in circulation, and to the
celerity with which it circulates."
Hmmm...I wonder if that is why congress continues to print money for us. These "stimulus" packages are really just printed money going straight to the consumers instead of replacing money with the banks. With more money, the government can tax us more. I also notice the topic of how fast the money circulates comes up. Wouldn't that mean that during a recession that we should probably be taxed less? It would seem that Hamilton knew more about economics over 200 years ago than many in our government today. This is why in my last post I came up with an idea to have the Federal Reserve have a limited amount of power in controlling the tax rates.
"of putting it into the power of the government to increase the rate without prejudice to trade. "
This is an interesting statement. It seems that he wants government to be able to tax, but not for the reason of deterring people from trading a specific product. I heard on Fox News that some want a sugar tax to "solve" our obesity problem. Wouldn't that directly go against what he just said though? Pretty soon they are going to tax bullets at such a high rate as to deter people from buying bullets. Then you will not be able to heat your home to 72 in the winter (sort of like California trying to control peoples housing temps). One day you won't be able to go to a fast food restaurant since they aren't healthy enough. This is pandora's box here. Its controlling the public "for their own good". Who else in history has done that?
The rest was on a single union helping them collect tariffs for the most part. Most of it didn't extrapolate to todays circumstances, but definitely a good read.
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke