≡ Menu

“F*ck you, Milton Friedman”

Related:

Hey, I didn’t say it. This dude did:

F*ck you, Milton Friedman.

January 31, 2008 – 2:00 am Going forward, I shall refer to the day on which I prepare my family’s tax return, which this year falls on January 30, as F*ck Milton Friedman Day.

Friedman, for all of his great contributions to economic theory and advocacy of the free market, was also instrumental in developing the Federal government’s most efficient means of confiscating the income of Americans with a minimum of protest: the withholding tax.  Prior to the 1940s, citizens paid taxes in a lump sum every March.  The 1913 tax act, which was adopted following the ratification of the 16th Amendment, originally called for withholding as well, but taxpayers expressed great displeasure at money being taken out of their pay envelopes before they even received them.  The withholding provision was struck a few years later.

The problem with annual lump-sum payments is that it proved very difficult for the IRS to ensure it received all of the revenue that citizens were obligated to pay.  Furthermore, it hampered the government’s ability to fund operations throughout the year.  Imagine getting just one paycheck every year, covering your entire annual salary.  You would likely budget your money very carefully to ensure it covered your expenses throughout the year.  On the other hand, it would also give you the opportunity to invest some of that money so it could earn interest until you needed it to pay later expenses. In retrospect, that’s probably not a bad way for government to operate as well.

The Feds seemed to realize this, so to raise revenue during the year it sold “tax anticipation notes” to taxpayers to generate interest to help pay their tax bill the following year.  This allowed taxpayers to meet their tax liability using less money than if they paid out-of-pocket when the bill came due.

With the country’s entrance into World War II, the government was faced with skyrocketing expenditures.  Congress adjusted the tax rates from a heavily progressive system that mostly impacted the rich into more moderate brackets that imposed obligations on nearly everyone.  Within three years following the attack on Pearl Harbor, the number of tax returns received by the IRS increased more than four-fold.  Had the lump-sum payments continued, the entire system would have collapsed under the effort of ensuring tax obligations were met with every return.  Withholding taxes at the source—by conscripting employers to serve as the government’s revenue agents—was the most effective method to protect the government’s revenue stream.  In 1942, Friedman, then working in the Treasury Department, devised a new withholding plan.  But the challenge of selling it to a public which had roundly rejected the previous scheme remained.

And like any good bureaucrats and politicians, they used the time-honored trick of snake-oil salesmen everywhere: they lied about it.

The key strategies used to obtain support for income tax withholding in 1943 all entailed political transaction-cost augmentation. Government officials artfully employed national defense language, tax-cost information, and promises of “tax forgiveness” to engineer support for a withholding system at root designed to enhance and protect government revenue for all times to come. The above-noted conflict between the government’s actual objectives and its publicly promoted objectives formed only one part of a systematic pattern of transaction-cost manipulation . . .

Treasury officials repeatedly testified to Congress that such withholding of income taxes–current collection at the source–represented “no additional tax.” On dozens of occasions, Treasury official Randolph Paul and other government spokesmen testified:

This collection at the source mechanism is nothing but a mechanism for collection. It is not an additional tax. … It merely speeds up the collection (U.S. House Hearings 1942, vol. 1: 100).

It should be kept in mind that collection at the source does not in itself increase or decrease the tax liability of the taxpayer (U.S. House Hearings 1943: 11).

Given the expert witnesses’ knowledge of present value, statements so seriously misleading to Congress and the public could not have been inadvertent.

Because it replaced interest-bearing notes with a pay-as-you-go system, the withholding tax did represent an additional tax on the public, by taking money before it even reached taxpayers’ pockets to be used by the government.  Only when taxpayers filed their returns could they determine if they paid too little (and thus would have to send even more money to the IRS) or too much (and thus receive a refund, although the Treasury did initially suggest that interest be paid on any money returned).  And with future dollars worth less than the present value of the money taken by the government, taxpayers would lose even more each year.

The Treasury Department acknowledged all this in hearings before Congress, yet insisted that withholding would not only impose no additional tax burden, but was merely a convenience for patriotic Americans to meet their obligations and support the war effort.  And these same obfuscations were parroted by members of Congress during floor debates.  Oppose such a sensible scheme, and you allow the Huns and Japs to win.

Sixty-five years later the government still gets its loot via the withholding tax, and despite many proposals to eliminate or at least greatly simplify the process, it remains the single greatest enabler of an ever-expanding state.  As Murray Rothbard wrote about Friedman in 1971:

Only the Friedmanite withholding tax has permitted the government to use every employer as an unpaid tax collector, extracting the tax quietly and silently from each paycheck. In many ways, we have Milton Friedman to thank for the present monster Leviathan State in America.

Friedman did later express his regrets at helping bring about the withholding tax, as evidenced in this interview with reason’s Brian Doherty in 1995:

It was a very interesting and very challenging intellectual task. I played a significant role, no question about it, in introducing withholding. I think it’s a great mistake for peacetime, but in 1941-43, all of us were concentrating on the war.

I have no apologies for it, but I really wish we hadn’t found it necessary and I wish there were some way of abolishing withholding now.

Yeah, me too.  And while I stand to repatriate a significant chunk of my income from the Leviathan State this year, when I click the File button in TurboTax I’ll remember to honor the man who made it necessary in the first place: f*ck you, Milton Friedman.

Share
{ 7 comments }

Kinsella Interviewed by YAL

I was interviewed recently by Matt Cockerill of Young Americans for Liberty. Our interview covered several topics, such as minarchism vs. anarcho-libertarianism, the non-aggression principle, gay marriage, restitution vs. retribution, intellectual property, and pessimism and activism. Here are the audio file; the Youtube version is below:

[LRC cross-post]

Share
{ 1 comment }

Hoppe on the Nobel Prize

Jesse Walker’s Reason blog post, Memo to Stockholm, references Timothy (Wirkman) Virkkala’s suggestions to thoughts about the Bank of Sweden’s upcoming Nobel Memorial Prize for Economics. I posted a comment there: Hans-Hermann Hoppe notes in an interview:

among Austrian economists there has been some speculation why Hayek’s recognition came so late (in 1974). One highly plausible explanation is this: If the prize is awarded for the development of the Mises-Hayek business cycle, then as long as both Mises and Hayek are still alive you can hardly give the prize to Hayek without giving it also to Mises. Yet Mises was a life-long opponent of paper money (and a proponent of the classical gold standard) and of government central banking—and the prize money for the economics “Nobel” was “donated” by the Swedish National Bank. Mises, then, so to speak, was persona non grata for the “donors.” Only after Mises had died in 1973, then, was the way free to give the prize to Hayek, who, in contrast to his “intransigent” master and mentor, had shown himself sufficiently willing to compromise, “flexible,” and “reasonable.”

Hoppe notes in another interview

:

A&K: Supposing you sat on the Nobel Prize committee for economics, who would you consider deserves the Prize—please exclude yourself. HHH: Anyone of the leading lights associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute. However, the nominating committee is filled with statists, and the prize itself has been established by the Swedish Central Bank, and so, given the fact that Misesian economists are uncompromising free-marketeers and oppose in particular any form of monetary socialism (central banks), their chance of ever winning the prize is virtually zero. A&K: Why would you nominate them? HHH: Because Misesian – Austro-libertarian – economists have the best grasp of the operation of free markets and of the detrimental effects of government (states) on the formation of wealth and general prosperity. This is illustrated by the fact that Mises, and those economists following in his footsteps, have by far the best record in  predicting the outcome of socialism, of the modern redistributive welfare-state, and in particular of government-controlled paper-money regimes and of central banking.

Jesse Walker mentioned to me that Hayek didn’t publish The Denationalization of Money until after he won his Nobel, and wondered if Hayek really supported central banking at the time he collected the prize. Comments?

Update: A friend told me Friedman was in favor of Mises getting a Nobel; I expressed disbelief, so he quoted to me from p. 353 of Ebenstein’s Hayek bio:

Friedman has written in response to a query from Mark Skousen: “I believe Ludwig von Mises was certainly of a quality that would have made him an entirely appropriate recipient of a Nobel Prize” in Economics (Friedman letter to Mark Skousen, March 5, 1996).

I don’t get this. How can Friedman think this if Mises’s methodology was so much at variance with Friedman’s positivism? See, e.g. Friedman’s comments, as quoted on p. 273:

In 1995, Friedman made the following comments about Hayek’s and particularly Mises’ methodological positions:

I never could understand why they were so impressed [at LSE] with the lectures that ended up as Prices and Production, and I still can’t. As of that point, he [Hayek] had not freed himself from the methodological views of von Mises. And those methodological views have at their center that facts are not really relevant in determining, in testing, theories. They are relevant to illustrate theories, but not to test them, because we base economics on propositions that are self-evident. And they are self-evident because they are about human beings, and we’re human beings. So we have an internal source of final knowledge, and no tests can overrule that. Praxeology.

That methodological approach, I think, has very negative influences. It makes it very hard to build up a cumulative discipline of any kind. if you’re always going back to your internal, self-evident truths, how do people stand on one another’s shoulders? And the fact is that fifty, sixty years after von Mises issued his capital theory–which is what’s involved in Hayek’s capital theory–so-caled Austrian economists still stick by it. There hasn’t been an iota of progress.

It also tends to make people intolerant. If you and I are both praxeologists, and we disagree about whether some proposition or statement is correct, how do we resolve that disagreement? We can yell, we can argue, we can try to find a logical flaw in one another’s thing, but in the end we have no way to resolve it except by fighting, by saying you’re wrong and I’m right.

On the other hand, if you take more like a Karl Popperian approach, an approach which says what we do in science is to offer hypotheses about the consequences of certain events and, if we disagree, we test those by trying to seek empirical evidence that contradicts our predictions–if you and I disagree, we have another way to solve our problems, resolve our differences. I say to you, what facts can I find that will convince you I was right and you were wrong. You say to me, what facts can I find that will do the opposite. Then we go out and observe the facts. That’s how science progresses.

Now, as I said, I believe that Hayek started out as a strict Misesean, but he changed. The more tolerant atmosphere of Britain, then subsequently of the U.S., and his exposure to a wider range of scholars, led him to alter that position.

Does this sound like someone who would respect Mises enough to think he deserves a Nobel Prize?

[Mises cross-post]

Share
{ 1 comment }
Share
{ 0 comments }

As reported here, Google has heroically been trying to negotiate the rights to scan and make available “millions of out-of-print books.” I.e., to solve a problem caused by the state’s copyright law. But the “$125 million agreement between Google and U.S. authors and publishers is being renegotiated,” because “the U.S. government said it seemed the agreement would violate antitrust laws.” In other words, if you try to work around one state-granted monopoly (copyright), they’ll stop you by accusing you of violating state anti-monopoly law. Unbelievable. The state does nothing but destroy.

[Mises post; AM post]

Share
{ 0 comments }

See the great post from Mike Masnick, Professors Claiming Copyright Over Their Lectures, about the ridiculous case of some Harvard Professors claiming copyright in their lectures, jeopardizing the rights of students to take notes (this is so opposite the approach of the heroic MIT). I mused in an email, “what idiot can ever think this is libertarian,” and my compadre Manuel Lora replied, “it’s tricky. We’ve been told that we should get the fruits of our labor for hundreds of years. IP opposition goes against the grain.”

Great point. I think this has been a “dark horse” issue for so long for a few reasons. First, most non-libertarians are so statist and legislation-accepting, that they accept the common wisdom. Second, IP law is so arcane and convoluted that it’s not understood well by most non-specialist libertarians–so they sort of just assume it’s part of property law but just some boring, specialized area. The few libertarians who try to justify it on principle, like Rand or Galambos or Schulman, are so overboard or passionate that libertarians who only casually look at this assume they are right.

And a third reason is that until the digital, Internet revolution the abuse and injustice has been more limited and less visible. But I think with the increasingly visible examples of increasingly unjust applications, principled libertarians can see more and more easily that IP is poppycock. So that when they hear nonsense like “two copyrights” and just envisions students being sued for … taking notes, they know it’s all baloney.

We just need to persuade them it’s not fixable–it’s inherently screwed up. It can’t be fixed. It has to go.

[Mises post; AM post]

Share
{ 2 comments }

Outrageous and Ridiculous Patents and Judgments

Taken from the Appendix to my Mises Daily article Radical Patent Reform Is Not on the Way:

Examples of Outrageous Patents and Judgments

Examples of (at least apparently) ridiculous patents and patent applications abound (more at PatentLawPractice):

[continue reading…]

Share
{ 3 comments }

Peikoff on Curing The Gay

In Leonard Peikoff’s latest podcast (no. 82), we are informed:

  1. It’s okay to say “bless you” after someone sneezes–they have Peikoff’s “blessing”.
  2. Homosexuality is a defect, based on erroneous premises; and someday in the future, maybe 100 years from now, the science of psychology and introspection may have advanced enough to let gays “fix” their error and become straight.
  3. It’s not a good idea for an old person who will lose medical benefits because of Obama to kill the medical health panel experts so she goes to jail to get better health care in prison.
Share
{ 1 comment }

Gene Quinn the Patent Watchdog

I’ve been going back and forth with patent attorneys Gene Quinn and Dale Halling in recent days–see Responding to Critics: My View on Patents & Innovation; Reality Check: Anti-Patent Patent Musings Simply Bizarre. He’s now accusing me of being a “liar” and has apparently banned my IP–otherwise I’d post the following there:

Gene,

I just saw your followup comments. It appears I misread your comment “I have offered a point by point debate where everyone answers the same question in 300 to 500 words” as saying you had responded to all our points already in writing on this exchange (which you have not). My apologies for the overly quick reading and for misconstruing your comment. I did not mean to imply you had not offered to debate. Sure, you’ve offered to debate. No need to post old emails or hysterically accuse me of being a liar.

I don’t think you’re a bad person or a bad patent lawyer, just that you are defending an unjustifiable position and not very good at arguing for it. Your entire case for patents as far as I can see seems to be an amateurish mishmash of ad hoceries. It’s not coherent or systematic. You seem to think asserting that patents are necessary for innovation, or asking a few rhetorical questions, constitutes an argument. It does not. Given that you do not seem to have an argument at all or be interested in serious discussion of this matter (witness your continued ignoring of the studies we’ve pointed you do), it is a mystery why you say you want to debate.

I am concerned that a debate with you would be a big waste of my and the audience’s time and simply make you look ridiculous; I have no desire for you to be embarrassed. But I’m still willing to do it, if someone can arrange it, and subject to suitable rules that keep you from evading questions, as you have repeatedly done in recent days in our written exchanges.

[continue reading…]

Share
{ 8 comments }

Latest notable terms from today’s Slate Culture Gabfest (feel free to email me suggestions or leave them in the comments to the main page):

  • distaff [Leo Laporte, MacBreak Weekly]
Share
{ 3 comments }

Sad Patent Attorney Comments

Patent attorney and pro-patent shill Dale Halling writes: “According to US Patent and Trademark (USPTO) Power Point presentation the allowance rate has again fallen to 41% by mid year 2009. This continues the sad trend of falling allowance rates that started in 2002.”

Why is it a “sad trend”? What if there are “too many” “poor quality” patents being issued, and fewer junk patents are being allowed?

Share
{ 6 comments }

Update: See Are anti-IP patent attorneys hypocrites?, collecting various posts about this topic.

***

Good post by Mike Masnick on Techdirt: Is It So Crazy For A Patent Attorney To Think Patents Harm Innovation?

from the not-at-all dept

I know a fair number of patent lawyers and copyright lawyers who are quite skeptical of what’s become of patent and copyright law — and who readily admit that the law has gone way beyond what is reasonable or what the law was designed to do (i.e., “promote the progress…”). And yet there are some in the patent or copyright legal business who somehow seem to think that it’s traitorous for a patent or copyright lawyer to ever dare question the idea that patents and copyrights work. I had a patent lawyer argue with me the other day that of course patents encourage innovation, because the Constitution says they do. This sort of logical blunder blows my mind. How can otherwise intelligent people assign such backwards logic to things? Do these same people also believe that when Congress passes any law, it automatically achieves its goals? [continue reading…]

Share
{ 6 comments }

© 2012-2026 StephanKinsella.com CC0 To the extent possible under law, Stephan Kinsella has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to material on this Site, unless indicated otherwise. In the event the CC0 license is unenforceable a  Creative Commons License Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License is hereby granted.

-- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright