TAXATION
Eliminate the progressive income tax – replace it with a flat income tax or national sales tax – for its purpose is redistribute wealth, not fund the constitutionally legitimate functions of the federal government.
In other words, a flat tax or a national sales tax will clearly result in a more equitable sharing of the load in terms of the cost of common needs. I must admit here that I do not believe that the wealthy get more out of government than the poor, and I could actually make the case that the opposite is true, so bearing that in mind I would define fair taxation as a situation where most taxpayers pay roughly similar dollar amounts into the system regardless of their income. I submit that people should not get a free ride simply because they are unsuccessful, however I will not suggest that Levin agrees with that arguably extreme position.
A progressive income tax, however, completely parts ways with the fairy tale concept that we are simply all paying our fair share of the cost of common infrastructure and services provided by the government. A progressive tax, meaning a tax where they decide how high a percentage to apply to you based upon how successful you are, is nothing more than an instrument for plunder. Not surprisingly, Karl Marx called for the progressive income tax in his Communist Manifesto, the playbook of the Left.
As an aside, I always have to point out that whenever anyone uses the self-congratulatory label of “progressive” you can bet that they wish to progress towards more socialism and more control over your life.
All residents of the country must be required to pay the tax so they have a stake in limiting its abuse.
An oversimplified analogy: if you are not paying the bill at the restaurant you will not hesitate to order the lobster. People who do not pay taxes have no interest whatsoever in controlling spending or growth of government and in fact often support the opposite, feeling that it will give them more opportunities to use the government to obtain the property of other, more successful people.
Eliminate the automatic withholding of taxes, for it conceals the extent to which the federal government is confiscating income from its citizens.
I have supported this for many years, going back to my most hard-core purist Libertarian days. I have always been convinced that if April 15th came along and everyone had to write a check for the astounding amount of money that the government was stealing from us we would have a revolution on April 16th. Withholding is just another way for the government to hide the amount of taxes that they are taking from you and you can see the ignorance it encourages when you hear someone who simply had too much withheld state “I did not have to pay this year, I got money back.” Statist politicians just love morons like that.
Eliminate the corporate income tax, for it is nothing more than double taxation on shareholders and consumers, and penalizes wealth and job creation.
I agree wholeheartedly with Levin here; it is clearly double taxation. Moreover, and this is what really irritates me, corporate income taxes are simply another way for them to hide the insatiable tax appetite of our out of control behemoth government. If the government raises taxes on a corporation the company will simply (and intelligently) respond by adding the higher taxes into the price of their product or service, the result being that every single tax in America is paid by individuals. Corporate income taxes succeed wonderfully at obfuscating that fact, often stoking some anti-corporate class warfare in the process.
Eliminate the death tax, for it denies citizens the right to confer the material value they have created during their lives to whomever they wish, including their family.
Let’s examine this. A person works for their entire life, perhaps making wise investments and saving money, and at the time of their death they have some valuable assets. Then in steps the government to take some more. Lost in the debate is the cold hard fact that everything that they managed to invest or save is taken from the money that is left after the government has already taxed them. There is no tax more immoral than the death tax. It is an inherently evil wealth confiscation and redistribution program.
I had a very heated discussion with an acquaintance on this very subject. He (pathetically) argued that the money belonged to the dead person, not the heirs, and that the government had every right to take all of it to redistribute to “the people”. People who support the death tax are Marxists. They simply do not believe in private property rights. Most people who think like this are ambition-deficient losers, so it’s no surprise why they feel the way that they do. They want your stuff.
All federal income tax increases will require a supermajority vote of three-fifths of congress.
I was very involved in the political debates of the 90s, when a previous seemingly hard-left President came into office, though in retrospect President Clinton was refreshingly reasonable and centrist compared to the statist juggernaut of the Obama administration. But I digress. One thing that I supported wholeheartedly during that time was the Republican attempt to pass a constitutional amendment to require a 60% supermajority vote in Congress to raise taxes. It failed to pass (meaning that it failed to successfully be proposed to the states as an amendment) by one vote, with RINO Sen. Mark Hatfield (OR) voting against it after it passed overwhelmingly in the House.
The cynic in me knows that even had it passed they would just stick it to us with “fees” or some other intentionally misleading term, avoiding the “tax” label in order to avoid the supermajority requirement.
Limit federal spending each year to less than 20 percent of the gross domestic product.
I agree. I would further argue that the amount of debt that the country holds should be limited to a hard percentage of the GDP.
We have a lot of work to do, my friends. Get up every morning asking yourself if you want your kids to grow up in the America of Obama’s statist vision, then light a fire under your posterior to do something about it.
Taxation is not a problem just at the federal level, but at the state and local levels as well. Many states use a similar graduated income tax, as does the IRS. However, many local communities use a flat rate for collecting income taxes. I would agree that a flat tax, providing that everyone pays it, is a more equitable means of taxation, but government at all levels must be on the same page.
One problem I see with a national sales tax – it may increase the cost of a large ticket item – making it more difficult for the consumer to purchase it. Large ticket items such as cars, appliances, furniture, etc., the consumer may be forced to finance the cost of the sales tax, which then artificially inflates the value of the item because of interest. Sales taxes often stifle the economy, rather than stimulate it. Additionally, the government would need to develop a narrow approach for defining what items will be included in the sales tax. Consumable items i.e., foods, prescription drugs, medical treatment and other items of necessity for health and wellbeing must be exempted.
An equitable solution needs to be found. Americans can no longer afford the cost of an out-of-control government that has an out-of-control penchant for spending. Tax reform is a must, as well as a significant reduction in the size of government at all levels.
Great post, thanx. Do you mind a plug for Ron Paul’s views and actions toward tax. Do you fundamentally disagree with any of his positions on this?
I need to take a look at what he really believes in on that topic.
He struck me as a little too naively purist, like I was back when I was an uppercase-L libertarian.
I was a Ron Paul fan going way back into the 90s, before he ever ran for president. But since he did not have a sliver of a chance in hell of winning in 2008 I did not support him. I am too old to be *that* unrealistic! :^)
@ Rob — yeah, I get all that. Good news, he is a Congressman ! If only we had more of him !
We also need election changes so that our votes show what we believe in !
Agreed.
What does it say about political labeling that he has to run as a republican? He is not one.
Of course, I vote republican even though I am libertarian. I guess that we are both just being smart.
Mike,
I am not sure that I agree that all govt’s need to use the same tax structure, though I would like it all to be a flat tax. I live in a state with an income tax.
The Fairtax people have addressed a lot of your concerns… part of the premise (and there would be an adjustment period, of course) is that once the coporate income tax is gone, the companies will no longer build those taxes into the price of the product (only individuals pay taxes in this country) and the prices would come down. One upside is that you would *see* those taxes every single time that you bought something, adding 20 percent or whatever to the price. What you need to remember is that when the sales tax comes in, other taxes (sinister *hidden* taxes) will go away.
I do not agree that those things should be exempted – either we are financing common infrastructure or we are not. Once you give them that power then they will start finagling the exemptions to pay off their benefactors, just like they do now with the income tax. One problem that I have with the Fairtax is that the unsuccessful among us will still manage to pay very little in taxes, continuing to be societal parasites, big ticks on the neck of productive America.
We certainly agree on the need for a *much* smaller government. I submit that most of the laws that affect you should be made in your state capital, where you can actually have some impact.
Okay, I like his statements in the link you posted, particularly this one:
“The most sinister of all taxes is the inflation tax and it is the most regressive. It hits the poor and the middle class. When you destroy a currency by creating money out of thin air to pay the bills, the value of the dollar goes down, and people get hit with a higher cost of living. It’s the middle class that’s being wiped out. It is most evil of all taxes.”
This is what the president and his collectivist henchmen are doing to us right now. Anyone buying into the fairy tale the we are coming out of this recession has no understanding of the coming results of printing another trillion dollars out of thin air.
If people are pissed *now*, wait until the dollar is worth nothing.
I agree, as far as I have thought it out. Lots of things would be better than this system.
BTW, I find hierarchy quotes very hard to follow, I advocate setting to zero.
Sabio – You’re right about the nested replies. I have made that change, thanks!
Thanks for your summary of Mark Levin’s book – he is a great conservative and makes a lot of sense. I love the flat tax system, but I struggle understanding what would have to happen politically for a flat tax system to be implemented, being that we are so entrenched in our current system.
I think that some of the high points of the FairTax would be:
1) The slimy bastards in congress will no longer be able to use the tax code to attempt to influence our behavior toward their statist ends.
2) The slimy bastards in congress will no longer be able to use the tax system for their quid quo pro bribery-and-tax-break scheme for industries and groups that allows them to cement their power and funding.
3) The people who earn their money via illegal means, like drug dealers and prostitutes and illegal aliens, will not be able to avoid paying into the system that they take so much out of.
4) The taxes are no longer as well hidden – you will see the taxes when you purchase everything.
The Fair Tax is not perfect. There are certainly things about it that I do not like. For instance, we will still have a certain segment of society who, based upon the cost of living minimum involved in the proposed system, will continue to be societal parasites living off of the rest of us.
But we have to remember the old axiom that perfection is often the enemy of progress. Almost anything would be an improvement on the system that we have now.