How do we (legally) damage our enemies, such as democrats and other socialists? One thing that occurs to me is: give a $10 donation to the next Democrat Presidential candidate. I guarantee they will spend multiples of that with follow up mailings trying to milk you for more. Give them $10 and it costs them $30–a net loss for them (and a net gain for liberty) of about $20.
But I had another idea yesterday. I have not researched the tax law on this, so may be off in my presumptions, but it is my understanding that income tax is owed if an American citizen is given something of value. If I give you a million bucks, you owe taxes (about $400k) to Uncle Sam. If you don’t file or pay, you are guilty of tax evasion. But if I give you, say, my Monet painting worth a million bucks, you still owe about $400k in taxes to Uncle Sam, even though you don’t have the money. Even if you don’t yourself subjectively value the Monet that much. This is government logic: it is void of economic sense (re subjective values) and fairness.
So here’s my idea. A millionaire libertarian individual sends a letter to a socialist politician, offering to give $1 million if the politician will only come spend the weekend, alone, with the millionaire on his yacht, so that the millionaire can explain to the politician why he thinks the government should be abolished. The offer should be made “irrevocable” for, say, a month. Now, the politician will surely decline the offer. However, that is not the point. The point is he was given something (an irrevocable offer) that had a monetary value. After all, receiving an irrevocable offer to be paid a million bucks for doing a relatively simple task, has a “fair market value,” just like the Monet has a fair market value. I would pay $100,000, for example, to be given such an offer, because then I would accept the offer and make a million bucks, off a $100,000 investment. So being offered money is itself being given something of value. By the logic of the income tax, the politician is now obligated to report the fair market value of the offer, and to pay income tax on it. If he does this (which is implausible), he has less money available and thus is damaged (which is good). If he does not, then the libertarian can call a press conference and point out that the politician is evading the very income tax laws he supports.
I think one flaw in my theory is that it might be difficult to make an offer irrevocable if there is no consideration given by the politician. i am not sure. But even a revocable offer is worth something.
Any millionaire libertarian volunteers?
