← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Texas Dissident
Thread ID: 397 | Posts: 4 | Started: 2002-04-09
2002-04-09 21:08 | User Profile
REAL Tax Reform
by Lewis J. Goldberg
The purpose of levying any tax is to simply 'fund government.' Politicians knew even during the writing of our Constitution that tax policy may be used to influence constituent behaviour, but that such tactics should be used judiciously. With its genesis as a system of government in which the individual was sovereign; 'reforms,' theorised by Henry Clay and enforced by Lincoln, have devolved our system of government into one which facilitates the use of tax policy to buy votes [ostensibly for one party,] and as a consequence [intended or not,] has created a sort of a caste system within the electorate. These manipulations have precipitated a long, slow backlash against 'the system,' but even with politicians and citizens alike screaming for more 'reform,' few understand what needs reforming, and why.
Understanding that taxes are a necessary 'evil,' we must also realise the cornerstone of any successful tax policy must be 'fairness.' 'Fair' in this sense must mean that the tax is no different for any two individuals; and since different rates of taxation affect men of varying earning capacity differently, 'no different' must mean 'low enough.' Modern tax theorists have settled on the idea of graduated taxes, which - though they 'seem' fair - are anything but fair. The graduated tax makes the assumption that higher wage earners don't 'need' their higher income [and conversely that lower wage earners can't bear to part with a cent of theirs.] Besides violating the Tenth of the Lord's Commandments ["Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." (Ex. 20:17)] graduated taxation - coupled with the 'social planning' so popular today - creates totally arbitrary standards of 'wealth,' subject to manipulations by unscrupulous legislators seeking to curry favour from certain constituents. So for 'fair' to be fair it ought be judged by the Lord's standard, who gave the Israelites their government and their church for only 10% of GDP [gross domestic product...now that's a good deal.] Since we have erected a "wall of separation" between these two institutions, we should be paying a lot less than 10%.
"Oh, but government today does so much more," you cry. Yes, it does...but it does far too much. In fact, Liberal zealousness to keep church and state at arm's length, they have succeeded in co-opting a lot of what the church traditionally used to do: feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc. [thus freeing the mainstream liberal churches to spend more time shilling for government.] Liberals have been successful in expanding government by tapping into, ironically, the nation's 'Christian sensibilities,' convincing us that 'these things' are necessary for government to do. Of course, they can't cite the correct reason to be charitable to our fellow men [In the eternal words of Christ, "...Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me,"] they have to make up some humanist mumbo-jumbo, which someone will come along one day and edit to suit some other purpose. Where once we were a nation of laws founded on the truth of Scripture, we now are a nation of the ideas of men - dead to truth and justice, swinging like an ideological piñata in the wind of social discontent.
One of the truths Liberals least grasp is that subjecting themselves to Biblical standards of taxation would benefit liberals just as much as anyone else. When Liberals make their policies subject to the whims of men, they allow their pet schemes to be overwritten by the Right [or the 'center,' or the 'tangent,' or whatever,] should political fortunes turn to their benefit instead. Liberals, with their envy-based system of taxation, scuttle the ship of state for a bit of temporary gain in power, prestige, and political clout. A quote going around the 'information superhighway,' being attributed to one of several people, says something like "democracy is doomed to failure when the electorate figures out it can vote itself money from the treasury." That has already happened...in the form of services as well as cash. Americans have been waddling up to the trough en masse for the better part of 70 years, and much longer on a smaller scale. Only our unprecedented growth [due to folks not too lazy or intolerable to work for a living,] keeps the ship from sinking, but, as we have witnessed of late, even a small downturn can elicit panic.
The only course of action for a nation committed to remaining on the map in recognisable form would be to a) return to the constitutional definition of what the federal government is supposed to do, and b) budget those functions based on the amount of tax to be brought in using a 'fair' rate. That fair rate would be established on the original Biblical standard, in which God ordained government and church to function on 10% [tithe] of GDP. Since we would be returning to the Constitution as our guide for government function, we should determine what percentage of the current budget goes to social programs and using 10% as our base total, adjust the percentage down to what it ought to be without HHS, Education, Agriculture, etc.
For instance, if unconstitutional government services currently make up 60% of the total federal budget, then 40% of ten should be the percentage of production on which government should be expected to make do. Now, all we need to do is set everyone's income tax rate to 4%, right?
Wrong.
Let The States Pay It
When the Constitution was written, it was intended as a delimiting document on the functions of the federal government, and how it would function in relation to the States. In fact, the controversy over inclusion of the Bill of Rights was that the Framers saw the ideas as an intrusion of interaction between individual people and the federal government, something they tried diligently to avoid. Aside from the Bill of Rights, there is little mention of individual people, aside from requirements for candidates for office. When one contemplates the enormous number of Federal 'crimes' on the books, it is staggering to think that the only crimes mentioned in the Constitution were 'treason' and 'counterfeiting' [because they were direct crimes against the constitutional functions of federal government.] The States could well see to trying and imprisoning their own citizens without federal assistance. Taxation of individuals was likewise prohibited by the Constitution...in fact it took an Amendment to make it legal [and many insist that the 16th amendment was never really passed.]
The Founding Fathers were far from perfect, but they were relatively wise men, and everything they did in the Constitution was for a good reason. Prohibiting the federal government from taxing people was a good idea in 1787, and it's an even better one today. States are not Constitutionally barred from taxing individuals, even though some of them still don't today. In a 'constitutional' nation, we would pay our taxes to the State, and the federal government would send each State a bill for their 'fair share' of operating the government.
Thomas Jefferson once boasted "...it may be the pleasure and the pride of an American to ask, What farmer, what merchant, what laborer ever sees a tax gatherer of the United States?" There was no such beast, and never should we have allowed it.
Now, shifting the burden for taxation to the States does not end the debate. Wars to define 'fairness' and the 'proper function of government' will still be fought, but they will be fought in their proper arena - the State Capitols [a town of which many Americans don't know the name or location.] New Yorkers should argue tax policy with other New Yorkers, and let Californians debate social welfare with other Californians. For why should someone in Missouri capitulate to the taxation schemes of a Vermonter [or Vermontoid?] Why should Idahoans fund the social programs Hawaiians want?
For New Yorkers, Albany should be the most important town on the map, likewise Sacramento for Californians and Topeka for Kansans. Frankly, most State capitols are sleepy little towns filled with underpaid bureaucrats who shuffle federal grant documents from one side of their desk to the other, and most folks' only contact with their State is the driver license bureau. This attitude must change, or someone in Washington DC will figure out that the State governments could simply be done away with.
[Hint: they already have figured it out...now they're just trying to figure out how to sneak it past us.]
They used to call this line of thinking "States' Rights." For many of you, the above arguments make perfect sense. For the rest of you, the 'third world' has plenty of 'central' governments...get your vaccinations and get on the boat. We won't miss you.
Your comments and questions are encouraged. [editor@patriotist.com]
Lewis J. Goldberg is the editor of The Patriotist. Article reprinted with permission of same.
2002-04-13 02:20 | User Profile
hell at this point i would take either one.
first get rid of the tax we have now. then let the bastards scrape to enact a new improved one. oh, i meant a 'new improved one'.
one problem with the tariff approach is that there is a certain amount of welfarism in unions now that didnt exist in 1860. that sure wouldnt get better overnight.
and i am starting to wonder just how much stuff is made here anymore anyway. but, that would get better...
i do like the sales tax approach however as it doesnt tax assets. imho invested money should be allowed to work.
now, ya dont hear much about it, but there are a lot of accountants and tax and estate lawyers out there. it came up during the last estate tax debate. they will vote socialist en masse against any tax simplification effort.
/////////
states' rights. long overdue to be thrust back on the national table.
2002-04-13 16:08 | User Profile
now, ya dont hear much about it, but there are a lot of accountants and tax and estate lawyers out there. it came up during the last estate tax debate. they will vote socialist en masse against any tax simplification effort.
That is why it will never happen. Their BS jobs depend on these laws. They are partners in crime with the government as far as I'm concerned. Business loves government now that we have devolved into a society of thiefs.
2003-09-28 19:43 | User Profile
Hello ... I just found this site by cruising the Net and this is my first post. Looking forward to learning from you all. I'm Libertarian and lean toward the Old Right. I have the writtings of the ilk of John T. Flynn, Frank Choderoff, H.L. Mencken, Ayn Rand .... etc.
I LOVED Alan Keyes in the Republican debates when he called our present tax system a "Slave Tax System." And ... he was exactly right. By what figment of the imagination could one accept the thought that the Federal Government can stretch it's hand three thousand miles across the land and extract a worker's money from his paycheck prior to the worker seeing it, and then still call this a free country? The solution: abolish the federal income tax and the IRS bueaucracy that comes with it. A simple sales tax would work in a similar vein to when one pumps his gasoline. The taxes are taken at the pump and the percentage of the tax is posted at the pump where everyone can see it. There are no 1040 forms, deadlines, audits, levies, property confiscations, fines, interest or tax courts. The CPAs, form producers & IRS employees, as a result, would have to find honest work. A national sales tax is an excise tax, exactly as the Founders envisioned.
Vi