An argument used against abolition of the penny is that by doing so it would, “deprive the government of significant seigniorage.” (Aside: seigniorage refers to the profits to be made by the making (literally) of money). Two thoughts for the day:
I suppose you could reconcile these a little bit by arguing that the reason people hate profits is because they think those profits are “taken” from helpless and unwitting customers, that all profits are had only because the grace of good government allows companies to operate peacefully (there is some truth in this), and that generally no one has a right to property, so it all belongs to “the state” (which really means a few people exercising power in the name of the many).
Our local government officials often proclaim that one of the benefits of industrial land development is how much more tax revenue it will bring to the township. Conversely, they oppose residential development on the grounds that the new residents will not pay enough in school taxes to cover the cost of additional children in the government schools. It’s as if the people are mainly taxpayers, and that their main function is to finance the activities of government.
I like the Laffer Curve, as it assumes the government ought to tax only to pay the bills and not just take revenge on the Czar and his family.
This blogpost was pretty informative. Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute has a pretty cool lecture series on the Laffer Curve. You might want to check it out. Here it is (in 3 parts):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIqyCpCPrvU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsB_rnzBA08&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw7LtVwDCbs&feature=channel