It seems obvious. The tax code is a complicated mess that everyone agrees should be simplified. Yet it doesn’t happen. Why not?

As it turns out, quite a few people don’t want to be rid of the current code, as I explain in this recent column at EveryJoe.

Sadly, tax code opacity and complexity is seen as a feature by the ruling class. The problem has been understood for decades yet only ever gets worse. Nothing gets done about it because politicians and the parasite class benefit tremendously from the complexity of the tax code, and as far as they are concerned, the less that you know is being taken from your wallet, the better.

First and foremost, a complex tax system makes it easier for politicians to reward their friends and allies by auctioning off loopholes in exchange for campaign dollars. K Street is filled with lobbyists that make a mint off of securing favorable tax treatment for special interests. These deals only work because no one on the outside can possibly track what any particular change to an obscure section of the byzantine tax code means in the real world.

Another significant political benefit of the withholding system is that it reduces the taxpayer anger toward Washington that would otherwise be felt during tax season. Paradoxically, some taxpayers even look forward to tax day because they will get a refund! What’s not great about getting money, right? Nevermind that it was money they worked for in the first place, and that by overpaying the IRS throughout the year they’ve effectively reduced the value of their earnings (there’s no interest from forced loans to the IRS). Yet taxpayers still perceive the influx as a positive event, and that’s good for politicians who like to tax and spend.

Find the rest of the piece here.

Would you like that with cream, sugar, or a lecture on race relations? The Starbucks CEO seems to think his customers are clamoring for the latter, as that’s what he’s offering with a campaign called ‘Race Together:’

In a video message, Schultz urges “partners” to write the phrase on their paper cups “to facilitate a conversation between you and our customers.” A USA Today supplement, set to be published March 20, includes a number of “conversation starters,” including the fill-in-the-blank question: “In the past year, I have been to the home of someone of a different race ___ times.”

Here’s a thought, how about you just shut up and give me my coffee.

That’s probably giving too much credit to the impact this PR-aimed initiative will have on most customers, but do we really need yet another conversation on race that goes nowhere? How many of these unproductive conversations must we have before it begins to sink in that obsessing over race at all times is part (though just a part) of the problem?

And must every economic transaction come attached with social and moral grandstanding, as is the current trend (with Starbucks being a prolific offender)?

One of the great values of the free market is that the incentives are toward tolerance. At times in the past that incentive has been overwhelmed by stronger social prejudices, but trade still promotes tolerance. And that’s because it allows people to interact that otherwise don’t like one another (for whatever reason). Trade strips transactions down to their core of value for value and thereby reduces social conflict.

Americans disagree with their peers on a lot of issues, and yet in most contexts it doesn’t matter. But if every economic transaction must be accompanied with exchanges of social and political values, some of those exchanges will inevitably result in unnecessary conflict. Society would become more fractured, not less.

On the other hand, here we all are talking about Starbucks. Even if it’s just to slam their CEO’s ham-fisted attempt at playing white savior, I suppose that’s an advertising win.

The government gets away with a lot that clearly violates the rights of the people. My most recent column at EveryJoe considers whether it might be getting away with a little bit less in the near future.

First, the good news. The Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that could have significant impact on property rights. It’s brought by California raisin farmers who were fined massive amounts by the government simply for selling their crop. You see, in America – the land of the free and the home of the brave – it’s rarely ever true that you can juts make a product and sell it. You must jump through hopes to produce your goods, then jump through more to sell them.

…Raisin farmers were promised a return on their forced contributions, but over time saw ever dwindling returns. In 2003 the government confiscated 47% of their crops and provided zero compensation. Let me say that again. The government stole nearly half of all raisins produced without compensating farmers at all.

…When it hears the case later this year, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to breathe life back into the Takings Clause and make clear that the law does not allow for such blatant government theft.

The other bit of positive news comes from an unexpected source. As one of his last acts as Attorney General, Eric Holder recently announced new restrictions on civil asset forfeiture, which allows police and prosecutors to take money and property from citizens never convicted of a crime if they can plausibly argue a tangential relation of the property to a suspected crime. It is then put on the citizen to prove their innocence, or more specifically, the innocence of their property. And I kid you not, the government actually “charges” the property in question, which results in bizarre case names like United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency or Nebraska v. One 1970 2-Door Sedan Rambler (Gremlin).

…In apparent response to this growing awareness, Holder’s order declared that “Federal adoption of property seized by state or local law enforcement under state law is prohibited.

But there are some important caveats to both pieces of news, which you can find out by reading the whole thing here.