You provided absolutely 0 evidence of any political bias in Henry Hazlitt's book.
HALF THE FUCKING BOOK IS EVIDENCE!
I'll submit this paragraph as evidence:
The concept of functional wages has been taken over, in a perverted form, by the Marxists and their unconscious disciples, the purchasing-power school. Both of these groups leave to cruder minds the question whether existing wages are “fair.” The real question, they insist, is whether or not they will work. And the only wages that will work, they tell us, the only wages that will prevent an imminent economic crash, are wages that will enable labor “to buy back the product it creates.” The Marxist and purchasing-power schools attribute every depression of the past to a preceding failure to pay such wages. And at no matter what moment they speak, they are sure that wages are still not high enough to buy back the product.
OR
Reduction of the rate of increase in real wages is not, of course, a consequence inherent in the nature of unions. It has been the result of shortsighted policies.
Or
Real wages come out of production, not out of government decrees.
How about...
But if the planners succeed in tying up the idea of international cooperation with the idea of increased State domination and control over economic life, the international controls of the future seem only too likely to follow the pattern of the past, in which case the plain man’s living standards will decline with his liberties.
....
Such loans are urged in Congress for reasons that seem very plausible to most listeners. They are told that the farmers’ crops are all dumped on the market at once, at harvest time; that this is precisely the time when prices are lowest, and that speculators take advantage of this to buy the crops themselves and hold them for higher prices when food gets scarcer again. Thus it is urged that the farmers suffer, and that they, rather than the speculators, should get the advantage of the higher average price.
He is literally talking about welfare, minimum wage, free trade policies, and government subsidies...AND MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS.
I agree with what he is saying but it is the definition of bias.
But back to taxes!
Any tax on income is immoral, evil and wrong.
Just income tax?
Central governments have existed for many years with 0 taxes on people's income. Quite successful ones, in fact, like the USA.
Right, but the government doers need a lot of money to run...so where should that money come from? Income tax represents over 40% of the tax revenue.
I want to know what you think the system SHOULD look like.