scourge [noun]: 1: whip; especially : one used to inflict pain or punishment; 2: an instrument of punishment or criticism; 3: a cause of wide or great affliction [source: m-w.com]
This may be a very wide-ranging article; if so, my apologies, but I find this ugly thing (income tax) at the nexus of many important topics, namely: privacy, liberty, the pursuit of happiness.
On February 3rd, the 16th amendment to the Constitution will attain its 99th year. Like many amendments, it is short: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
The income tax, born in 1861 in order to fund war, and having faced many court challenges over the last half of the 19th century, on February 3, 1913 made its way into our national vivre. In its 1861 infancy, it was flat, affecting all incomes above a very low figure (c. $19k in 2011 dollars) at the same flat rate of 3%. In its post-amendment inception, it became graduated, taxing higher incomes at higher rates. The pendulum of populism, moved by the early-20th-century realities of child labor, a virtually unlimited industrial work week and enormously powerful corporations, had reached a zenith. Who said “Pass Prosperity Around” at the bottom of one of his flyers in the 1912 presidential campaign? None other than Teddy Roosevelt. And so, moved by these and other forces (notably the rise in the public mind that “science would solve all problems”), 42 of the 48 states eventually ratified the amendment.
As with many progressive/socialist ideals, the intended achievement requires in the end a reversion to compulsion. And so even this road to hell was paved with good intentions. Why do I use such strong language (scourge, hell, compulsion) for the income tax? Quite simply:
1. It violates a basic tenet of the stated religion of many Americans: Many of us who take our beliefs seriously are commanded to give our “first fruits” to God. I never receive my “first fruits” when I receive a paycheck; they are withheld, and in this simple but very clear way, the federal government places itself in the position of God. In a real sense, this violates my First Amendment rights by prohibiting to me the free exercise of religion. Why can I not be billed for the taxes owed? Why is my income withheld? [The answer is somewhat disturbing: the courts held that this practice was allowable because of the practical value given to the “administration” of the tax.] What may be worse: the government forces employers to perpetrate this violation against their employees.
2. Income tax in practice violates the Fourth Amendment, namely our right to be “secure . . . in [our] papers.” Essentially, in order to enforce the income tax, our right to privacy is forfeited. Technically, all gifts I receive (Christmas, anyone?) may be taxable; all income (that check in your birthday card) counts. Did you sell something on eBay and make some money? And so even our most mundane activities fall under the jurisdiction of this hyper-intrusive tax.
3. It is impossible for any citizen to know with certainty that they are in compliance with the law. We have all heard the statistics of how many words the Tax Code contains. It is simply a labyrinth of regulations, exceptions, loopholes and pitfalls. Is it not a basic premise that a people who live by rule of law should be able to comprehend the law in the first place?
4. Violations of the Tax Code, when discovered, are prosecuted with absolute impunity by the Internal Revenue Service. We live in fear of audits; we dare not resist to any real degree because the consequences can be devastating.
5. The Tax Code, and therefore the tax, are open to rampant corruption through special interest influence. The last person served in this process is the individual voter or the individual wage-earner. The first person served is the person or corporation who can manipulate the system through money or other forms of influence.
6. Excessive progression in a tax system punishes success and rewards under-performance. For those individuals (and families) who have broken out of a poverty cycle, this comes as a bitter surprise. Hard work results in more intrusion, more tax, a higher likelihood of audit, more pressure to comply. Simply put, the harder we work, the more we are forced to contribute.
I am not anti-tax. Taxes are necessary. What a tax should not do: Invade your privacy; punish your success. What a tax should not be: Prone to corruption; incomprehensible.
In Texas, we get by rather well on a sales tax (though even in our great state things are changing for the worse.) A sales tax satisfies the requirements of principle: It does not invade privacy; it does not punish success; it is not prone to corruption; it is easily understandable. If an economy as large and diverse as Texas can thrive on a sales tax, why can’t we as a nation do the same?
For these reasons and others, I favor the Fair Tax. The related legislation (that currently has 66 co-sponsors in the House) repeals the 16th amendment (so that we don’t end up with both an income tax and a sales tax) and implements a national sales tax. There simply is no more transparent, ideologically acceptable way to collect taxes than this. Once the Fair Tax is implemented, refinements, such as those found in the Purple Tax, could be considered; but the Fair Tax is well-researched, is ready to go, and is far superior to our present income tax debacle.
So what does this have to do with Romney?
1. In the non-ficition book Life and Death in Shanghai, an oil executive’s wife is brought before the “revolutionaries” to make “confessions” of her capitalist “crimes.” There is an exceptional review here.
2. In Orwell’s Animal Farm, “confessions” are sought, and the “guilty” are slaughtered. (Scroll down in the link about half-way to the paragraph beginning “Presently the tumult died down.”)
3. One can find similar trails in C.S. Lewis’ That Hideous Strength, Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, Hayek’s Road to Serfdom.
4. The demand for Romney’s income tax information is essentially a demand for a “confession.” A confession that he is wealthy; a confession that he has paid minimal taxes; a confession that he is a corporate being; and in the ideology of the left, a "confession" to committing the "moral crime" of exceptional wealth.
My view: Romney should tell everyone that his income is none of their business, that he has no apologies to make because he makes his money legally, that anyone asking for the information should be prepared to publish their tax returns as well (but will not mean that he will reciprocate). Romney of course will not do this because he has no desire to abolish the income tax or the IRS. He has accepted the infringements of the system and as a powerful businessman and politician has used the system to his advantage. [Aside: I believe Santorum, Gingrich and Perry are preferrable to Romney.] In sum: Romney has no confession to make; he has committed no crime.
This may be a very wide-ranging article; if so, my apologies, but I find this ugly thing (income tax) at the nexus of many important topics, namely: privacy, liberty, the pursuit of happiness.
On February 3rd, the 16th amendment to the Constitution will attain its 99th year. Like many amendments, it is short: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
The income tax, born in 1861 in order to fund war, and having faced many court challenges over the last half of the 19th century, on February 3, 1913 made its way into our national vivre. In its 1861 infancy, it was flat, affecting all incomes above a very low figure (c. $19k in 2011 dollars) at the same flat rate of 3%. In its post-amendment inception, it became graduated, taxing higher incomes at higher rates. The pendulum of populism, moved by the early-20th-century realities of child labor, a virtually unlimited industrial work week and enormously powerful corporations, had reached a zenith. Who said “Pass Prosperity Around” at the bottom of one of his flyers in the 1912 presidential campaign? None other than Teddy Roosevelt. And so, moved by these and other forces (notably the rise in the public mind that “science would solve all problems”), 42 of the 48 states eventually ratified the amendment.
As with many progressive/socialist ideals, the intended achievement requires in the end a reversion to compulsion. And so even this road to hell was paved with good intentions. Why do I use such strong language (scourge, hell, compulsion) for the income tax? Quite simply:
1. It violates a basic tenet of the stated religion of many Americans: Many of us who take our beliefs seriously are commanded to give our “first fruits” to God. I never receive my “first fruits” when I receive a paycheck; they are withheld, and in this simple but very clear way, the federal government places itself in the position of God. In a real sense, this violates my First Amendment rights by prohibiting to me the free exercise of religion. Why can I not be billed for the taxes owed? Why is my income withheld? [The answer is somewhat disturbing: the courts held that this practice was allowable because of the practical value given to the “administration” of the tax.] What may be worse: the government forces employers to perpetrate this violation against their employees.
2. Income tax in practice violates the Fourth Amendment, namely our right to be “secure . . . in [our] papers.” Essentially, in order to enforce the income tax, our right to privacy is forfeited. Technically, all gifts I receive (Christmas, anyone?) may be taxable; all income (that check in your birthday card) counts. Did you sell something on eBay and make some money? And so even our most mundane activities fall under the jurisdiction of this hyper-intrusive tax.
3. It is impossible for any citizen to know with certainty that they are in compliance with the law. We have all heard the statistics of how many words the Tax Code contains. It is simply a labyrinth of regulations, exceptions, loopholes and pitfalls. Is it not a basic premise that a people who live by rule of law should be able to comprehend the law in the first place?
4. Violations of the Tax Code, when discovered, are prosecuted with absolute impunity by the Internal Revenue Service. We live in fear of audits; we dare not resist to any real degree because the consequences can be devastating.
5. The Tax Code, and therefore the tax, are open to rampant corruption through special interest influence. The last person served in this process is the individual voter or the individual wage-earner. The first person served is the person or corporation who can manipulate the system through money or other forms of influence.
6. Excessive progression in a tax system punishes success and rewards under-performance. For those individuals (and families) who have broken out of a poverty cycle, this comes as a bitter surprise. Hard work results in more intrusion, more tax, a higher likelihood of audit, more pressure to comply. Simply put, the harder we work, the more we are forced to contribute.
I am not anti-tax. Taxes are necessary. What a tax should not do: Invade your privacy; punish your success. What a tax should not be: Prone to corruption; incomprehensible.
In Texas, we get by rather well on a sales tax (though even in our great state things are changing for the worse.) A sales tax satisfies the requirements of principle: It does not invade privacy; it does not punish success; it is not prone to corruption; it is easily understandable. If an economy as large and diverse as Texas can thrive on a sales tax, why can’t we as a nation do the same?
For these reasons and others, I favor the Fair Tax. The related legislation (that currently has 66 co-sponsors in the House) repeals the 16th amendment (so that we don’t end up with both an income tax and a sales tax) and implements a national sales tax. There simply is no more transparent, ideologically acceptable way to collect taxes than this. Once the Fair Tax is implemented, refinements, such as those found in the Purple Tax, could be considered; but the Fair Tax is well-researched, is ready to go, and is far superior to our present income tax debacle.
So what does this have to do with Romney?
1. In the non-ficition book Life and Death in Shanghai, an oil executive’s wife is brought before the “revolutionaries” to make “confessions” of her capitalist “crimes.” There is an exceptional review here.
2. In Orwell’s Animal Farm, “confessions” are sought, and the “guilty” are slaughtered. (Scroll down in the link about half-way to the paragraph beginning “Presently the tumult died down.”)
3. One can find similar trails in C.S. Lewis’ That Hideous Strength, Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, Hayek’s Road to Serfdom.
4. The demand for Romney’s income tax information is essentially a demand for a “confession.” A confession that he is wealthy; a confession that he has paid minimal taxes; a confession that he is a corporate being; and in the ideology of the left, a "confession" to committing the "moral crime" of exceptional wealth.
My view: Romney should tell everyone that his income is none of their business, that he has no apologies to make because he makes his money legally, that anyone asking for the information should be prepared to publish their tax returns as well (but will not mean that he will reciprocate). Romney of course will not do this because he has no desire to abolish the income tax or the IRS. He has accepted the infringements of the system and as a powerful businessman and politician has used the system to his advantage. [Aside: I believe Santorum, Gingrich and Perry are preferrable to Romney.] In sum: Romney has no confession to make; he has committed no crime.
Well done, well written! Yes, we live in a great state and I do agree with a standard across the board sales tax for EVERYONE buying anything would
ReplyDeletebe paying; no exceptions. Federal income tax needs to be abolished, it has proven not to work and many whom receive the money paid in by the working class of our nation have never worked or paid into the federal income tax and yes you know these people; everyone knows who collects and was not contributors.
We all need to be expressing what needs to take place to help our nation. PRAYER
ReplyDelete