Some Misconceptions in Regard to Federal Taxation

Abstract

Two things strike the economist as peculiar about his science, and their strangeness grows with reflection upon them. The first is the readiness of people without scientific training to pass authoritative judgments upon the most difficult and intricate problem and the attention which is paid to them by the public, and the other is that the fallacious propositions which they put forth are such as it appears should really be avoided by the exercise of ordinary common sense without special training. In other fields, such as law, medicine, or engineering, the man in the street does not attempt to settle the problems by inspiration, or hunch, but calls upon the expert. And if he does express opinions, no one else will take him seriously. In economics, it is different. Anyone feels quite free and confident in settling nearly any question in an off-hand manner, and more remarkable still, if he has a glib tongue, or pen, what he says is likely to receive notice and credence fully equal to the pronouncement of a specialist who has studied the problems through a long life. Especially is this true if the person giving the obiter dictum has achieved a reputation in some other field of endeavor. The public does not think that because a man has achieved renown as a lawyer he is thereby qualified to diagnose internal cancer or remove an appendix, nor does the successful attorney himself get this idea. But let a great inventor, automobile manufacture, physician, or anything else, air his views upon the economic ills of the country and he immediately gets the front page of the newspapers, where a specialist in economics might be unable to get a hearing at all. During the war they were even denied space in the newspapers for which they offered to pay at advertising rates because their views ran counter to popular prejudices.

Citation

Emmett, R.B. (2011), "Some Misconceptions in Regard to Federal Taxation", Emmett, R.B. (Ed.) Frank H. Knight in Iowa City, 1919–1928 (Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, Vol. 29 Part 2), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 325-328. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0743-4154(2011)000029B032