Your Taxes, in Small Type

The business of business is to profit by helping others. The business of government is to make sure that businesses don’t profit by cheating others.

Unfortunately, sometimes it’s the governments that cheat.

Take the airline industry. Though substantially deregulated by the early 1980s, government has not treated it in an exactly laissez faire manner since. First there are the taxes, quite heavy. And recently the Department of Transportation decided that it must regulate the way in which airlines may advertise their prices . . . and the taxes. That is, the DOT insists that the “total price” — by which it means the price-plus-tax — must be shown prominently, with the tax portion “presented in significantly smaller type than the listing of the total price.”

Talk about regulatory micromanagement!

Now, this rule isn’t something Congress cooked up. It’s the result of a bureaucracy gone wild.

And the rule has one obvious effect: It shields government from consumer criticism, showing bureaucrats at their most self-serving. About one fifth of every airline ticket goes to the government, and folks in government don’t want you to know that.

This being the case, you might think — as George Will does — that the First Amendment would apply, especially since the First Amendment is now routinely held as protecting political speech more strictly than commercial speech. But, so far, courts have ruled for the taxing and regulating bureaucrats, not the competitive airlines. Or consumers.

Frequent fliers (I’m one) should hope the Supreme Court justices take up the case, which shows why economic and political freedom go best together.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

3 Comments so far ↓

  1. May
    9
    9:04
    AM
    Brian Richard Allen

    …. (1) Frequent fliers (I’m one) should hope the Supreme Court (2) takes up the case ….

    1. I’m one, too;

    2. You mean as it “took up” (and essentially — and corruptly — re-wrote) Barry-Soetoro-care?

  2. May
    9
    9:55
    AM
    Paul Jacob

    No, actually, I did not mean in THAT way!

  3. May
    9
    5:47
    PM
    Arnold H Nelson

    Paul, this is certainly a critical situation. Here is another: The Statistical Abstract of the US annually prints the fact that 73% of ALL federal taxes received come from withheld wages. Of course, when this all started in 1937 w/ SocSec, people felt a little nick in their take home, same in 1943 w/ the current tax payment act, but all they get now is an occasional note from their employer saying that if the employer wasn’t forced under jail threat to send the money in, they would give it to the employee. Yeah sure.

    This could be corrected by eliminating the w/holding, force voter/taxpayers to send in monthly checks on their personal bank accounts for SocSec and income taxes. After a year or so of that, they would start paying lots more attention to who they vote for to congress.

    Very difficlt to implement, but very big problems require difficult actions.

    Arn Nelson (on the Democrat occupied west bank of Lake Michigan (IL 9th CD))

Spruce up your comments with
<a href="" title=""><abbr title=""><acronym title=""><b><blockquote cite=""><cite><code><del datetime=""><em><i><q cite=""><strike><strong>
New comments are moderated before being shown * = required field Be sure to answer the simple math problem below to help demonstrate that you are a human rather than a spambot.

Leave a Comment






7 + six =