Discouraging Effort and Success

Why do we tax labor? We know that any tax on an activity discourages people from engaging in that activity by reducing the rewards for doing it. So why do we tax hard work, production, and wise investment? Do we really want less of those things?

We need to fund our government (some claim), so we need to tax something. Why not tax behaviors that we want less of? Wouldn't that be killing two birds with one stone?

What would happen if we ditched all income taxes (including capital gains, and corporate income taxes) in favor of taxation levied exclusively against consumption? How would our society change?

I imagine a system wherein my income is not monitored by the government, but the total amount of my consumptive spending is instead. It's easy enough to do - just give up cash and require banks to report the amount of spending. As long as my consumptive spending total for the tax period stays below a legally established minimum, I pay no tax. But when my total rises above that level, I begin to pay tax out of each additional dollar spent. So if I don't spend much beyond the limit, the taxation I experience will be very low.

There are many advantages to such a system. For one, we'd stop punishing smart and hardworking people for being so productive. Every dollar they earn would be theirs to keep. This would include dollars earned for good investments (capital gains). Similarly, we'd stop punishing businesses for competence in producing and selling products and services to people who need them. When a highly successful business has to pay a large amount of income tax while its less successful competitor pays no tax (due to writing off business losses) the playing field is being unfairly tipped to reward poor performance! Not only that, but why tax production at all when production is what gives us the things we need and desire?

Also very important is the fact that taxing consumption, instead of labor, production, and investment, allows individuals to adjust their tax liability to fit their circumstances and desires. If I don't want to pay so much in taxes this year, I can reduce my consumption and pay less. And, I bear no penalty for working extra hard to earn additional money to fund my future, or my children's future.

Under this kind of system saving would be strongly incentivized. For those who wished to avoid taxation, saving and wise investment would be the safest harbor for their money. Everyone would be faced with compelling reasons to defer spending to a later date. Government subsidized retirement could become unnecessary for average Americans.

It's possible to take this idea to a more extreme level and suggest that leisure (time spent not producing or learning) could be taxed when it exceeded a certain minimum amount. This could spur the indolent and chronically unemployed (whether poor or wealthy) to return to productivity, lending their efforts to the improvement of society.

Undoubtedly there are many weaknesses in such a plan, and opportunities for clever gaming of the system. But that is no different from our current system for taxation.

Are there structural problems with this proposition?

Overly Simplistic

So, how would it change the nature of American government if every law came with a sunset clause, by default? In order to persist beyond, say, three years, they'd have to be re-adopted. I believe that the primary change would be to make governance more experimental and more fluid. Good thing? I don't know. I think most people are annoyed by the very slow pace of positive change in this country, but probably most are happy that the pace of negative change isn't any more rapid.

Would there be other significant unintended consequences? E.g. Regime uncertainty? Could those consequences be mitigated in some way?

Shirking Your Duty

Want to get out of jury duty but don't have a good enough excuse, and don't want to stoop to the lows of feigning racism or stupidity? There's an easier way.

Prosecutors bring cases because they believe they have compelling evidence of the defendant's guilt. Weak cases can always be abandoned, or left to fester until more evidence can be collected. Attorneys for the defense have a harder job because if a case is pressed it's sure to be a relatively strong one.

This asymmetry between the two sides is easily exploited by the clever would-not-be juror. Because prosecutors believe they have the stronger case, and the moral upper hand, they are more likely to accept any juror of average or greater intelligence who is free of bigotries that will make him overly sympathetic to the defendant. The counsel for the defense, by contrast, will often be hostile to jurors who are accomplished, rational, or overtly moral or responsible. After all, they are going to ask the jury to put themselves in the shoes of a person who has likely made some poor decisions and displayed bad behavior, whether or not they are actually guilty of the crime of which they are accused. Remember that the prosecutor will bring charges against easy targets, and a person who has a history being a screw-up is an easy target.

How does this help you get out of jury duty? Because the easiest way to be dismissed from the juror pool other than for cause (e.g. extreme bigotry) is to be dismissed by the counsel for the defense without cause. To accomplish this you should try to present yourself as logical, successful, free from the spots of a checkered past, and most crucially, sympathetic to the person of the prosecutor. When the attorney for the defense is speaking, you can act as bored as you actually feel, but when the prosecutor speaks you must feign rapt interest, smile frequently, and show involvement. A nearly sure way to be dismissed is to raise your hand and ask a question (rarely done by potential jurors during the selection process) that is sympathetic to something the prosecutor has just said. Ask the question with a sincere and upbeat tone.

In fairness, I've never tried to avoid jury duty, and have only been called once. I was disappointed to be dismissed by the defense attorney, but it was my own fault because I did the things I suggest here. I couldn't help it. I had just graduated from college (literally a week before), had landed a great job as a rocket body design engineer, and on top of all of that the female prosecutor was attractive and intelligent, and frankly interesting to listen to. The accused was a sullen young man of approximately my age who, it came out, had frequently made a public nuisance of himself in the past and was accused of doing so again. I don't know if he was guilty, but I probably wasn't very likely to be sympathetic to him and that was painfully obvious to his attorney.

I do hope that someday I can actually serve on a jury because I'm interested in the process and the concept, and because I want to participate in this important part of government. I don't know if I will, though. Do people like me ever get selected to serve on juries?