• Barry Bonds and the State

    Email Print


    By now you
    know that Barry Bonds has surpassed
    Hank Aaron
    to become the greatest home run hitter in Major League
    Baseball history. And you also know that this new record does not
    come without controversy. Many baseball fans and regular Joes alike
    have made moral arguments against Bonds and the legitimacy of his
    record amid widespread allegations that he's cheated over the years
    by using steroids.

    Perhaps he
    has. But I have a question for you: Which is more immoral? A baseball
    player who may have used performance-enhancing drugs en route to
    accomplishing one of sports' greatest achievements, or a federal
    government that essentially created this scandal by hauling non-violent
    citizens in front of Congress to testify against themselves for
    allegedly doing something only to themselves? Depending on your
    outlook, you might think it’s a toss-up. Allow me to attempt clarification.

    If you believe
    Bonds’s new record is tainted as a result of the superstar’s alleged
    steroid use, you may very well dismiss his latest accomplishment
    as meaningless and insignificant. Very well. As someone who doesn’t
    really care one way or the other whether Bonds juiced up to augment
    his play, I can’t get too worked up over this issue. Indeed, I believe
    we all have much more to lose in the way of freedom as a result
    of the government’s involvement in this whole steroid fiasco, than
    we do in, say, the way of bruised sensibilities in the event the
    record was actually taken from Hammerin' Hank artificially.

    It is only
    as a result of the government’s arrogant and senseless “war on drugs”
    that it even deigns to believe it has the right to police Major
    League Baseball in the first place, when the league is perfectly
    capable of conducting its own affairs.

    folks already know that if the government can claim for itself the
    power to patrol and punish voluntary behaviors and transactions
    between consenting adults that result in no harm or benefit to anyone
    but those immediately involved — and which, oh by the way, take
    place in private facilities — then the government essentially has
    the authority to regulate, manipulate, and monitor virtually any
    transaction in which we freely choose to engage. If this is of less
    concern to you than a relatively unimportant baseball record, then
    we are all in trouble.

    Ever since
    the passage of the 16th
    , which granted the federal government the power to
    directly confiscate our income — our property — we basically
    are allowed to own nothing to which the government cannot also lay
    claim, at least in part. If there is a valid argument justifying
    taxes levied on voluntary consumer purchases, there is absolutely
    no justification for a tax that is nothing less than outright, state-sponsored
    theft. Though I would be incarcerated — and rightly so — for walking
    next door and taking money out of my neighbor’s wallet without his
    permission, the government makes this very act routine.

    So is it a
    surprise that before 21-year-old Matt Murphy probably could even
    call his folks to tell them he’d caught Barry Bonds’s 756th home
    run ball, tax experts were already cautioning him about the fiscal
    “obligations” he may very well have to the State? According to an

    “It’s an
    expensive catch,” said John Barrie, a tax lawyer with Bryan Cave
    LLP in New York who grew up watching the Giants play at Candlestick
    Park. “Once he took possession of the ball and it was his ball,
    it was income to him based on its value as of yesterday,”

    By most estimates,
    the ball that put Bonds atop the list of all-time home run hitters
    with 756 would sell in the half-million dollar range on the open
    market or at auction.

    That would
    instantly put Murphy, a college student from Queens, in the highest
    tax bracket for individual income, where he would face a tax rate
    of about 35 per cent, or about US$210,000 on a $600,000 ball.

    It should come
    as no shock that Murphy will be expected to pay taxes on his earnings
    in the event he sells the ball. But Barrie notes that Murphy may
    be subject to taxes based on a reasonable estimate of the ball’s
    value even if he doesn’t sell it. (Murphy could sell
    the ball, the so-called logic seems to go, so the government may
    as well take its cut now. By this rationale, the government ought
    to just toss us in jail arbitrarily because we all could
    commit a crime.) Only under a government that employs a tyrannical,
    confiscatory tax structure could anyone be expected to pay taxes
    on income he doesn't even have yet.

    Hence the immoral
    nature of the property tax. Not only are we taxed on goods at the
    time of purchase, but we're often also taxed on the value of our
    property after we've bought it. Taxing a baseball on a value that
    hasn’t even materialized in the form of a sale would be the same
    as paying local and state taxes every year on, for example, land
    or a car — taxes which are levied almost universally (where they
    exist) even if the owner has no outstanding debt on the property.
    Taxing Murphy's baseball on its value would be no different than
    the government taxing me every year on my lamps, televisions, toilets,
    frying pans, couches, bar stools, you name it, for no other reason
    than the mere fact that I own them.

    Never underestimate
    the State’s desire to tax us, especially when it identifies a succulent
    opportunity to hit the jackpot. There is as yet no official word
    from the IRS on whether Matt Murphy will be forced to pay taxes
    on the value of his prize. However, if the government decides to
    swoop in and steal from him simply for possessing a baseball the
    market deems more valuable than another, it would only be logical
    for it to tax everyone who catches a home run ball at a baseball

    If it seems
    as if this would be irrational and excessive — even outright fascistic
    and evil — that's because it would be. And though the idea's the
    same, it is even more depraved for the State to steal a chunk of
    our paycheck or any other property to which it believes it is entitled
    simply because we own it.

    All the juice
    in the world couldn’t put Barry Bonds in that category of immorality.

    In my
    previous piece
    , I mistakenly wrote that Ron Paul raised
    more money than John McCain from April to June. At the time, McCain
    had actually raised more money, but Paul was in a better financial
    position due to lack of debt. I regret the error.

    10, 2007

    Trevor Bothwell
    [send him mail] maintains
    the web log, Who's
    Your Nanny?

    Email Print