Americanly Yours

I got quite a lot of comments on last weeks article on income taxes.  It may have even gotten me banned from Facebook.  I stand by my views, including the view that income taxes (especially when used for redistributive social programs) represent a form of slavery.

I am going to try and answer the questions posed by my readers below, with the exception of Young Conservative’s question on the definitions of morality.  This will have to be saved for a separate article.

Yes, Kristen, I was tossed off of Facebook.  I hope to be back soon.  In the meantime, dont forget to click the “share” button to help me out.

Jeffrey Bowman asked if I would favor a consumption tax like the FairTax.  Yes, I would.  I believe that taxation is a necessary evil, but that it is necessary.  As I said in my article, I am not an anarchist.  I believe that a limited government is necessary to protect the rights of its citizens.  In order to fund the government, taxes of some form must be levied.

I prefer the FairTax because it essentially makes taxation voluntary.  Under the FairTax, every family in the country would be sent a check at the start of every month for the amount of money that their family would spend on taxes if they lived at the poverty line.  Additionally, used goods (ie, used cars and used clothing) would not be taxed.  Every individual would essentially pay the taxes that they wanted.

Wealthy individuals would be encouraged to save and invest, as savings and investment would no longer be subjected to taxation.

Under this system, even illegal forms of business could benefit the economy, as drug dealers and other criminals would be able to put their money into bank accounts, rather than under their mattresses.

Businesses would no longer have to match contributions to social security and medicare.  These programs would be funded through consumer spending.

In fact, the abolition of corporate income taxes could lead to foreign companies relocating to America.

American workers industry would benefit as well.  Because the employers would no longer have to match employee contributions, and because they would no longer have to pay corporate income taxes, American made goods could be sold to foreign consumers at a cheaper–and more competitive price.

Several years ago I read an amazing book on the FairTax called .  Check it out.  It breaks down the FairTax and tells of its effects on every group in society, as well as the effects on many different types of industries.  It answers questions and concerns on the tax that you may have.

Hawk–I wrote about property taxes here.  If that doesnt answer your questions, lemme know.  Yes, a tax on consumption would decrease consumption.  However, the increased income due to larger paychecks and the monthly “prebate” could offset this drop in consumption.  Additionally, greater profit margins for businesses inevitably leads to entry of new firms into business, which in turn leads to lower prices, thereby giving another incentive to consume.

However, maybe consumption should drop.  After all, the typical American family is deeply in debt.  Furthermore, many of the consumer goods that Americans buy with debt are purchased from foreign nations, leading to an increase in our negative trade balance (trade deficit).  I dont think it would be the worst thing in the world if consumption did drop, however, I still think that it would not do so due to the facts that I mentioned above.

The argument that CPA’s would lose their jobs doesnt bother me.  So what?  Let them use their financial skills to find work in other areas.  We shouldnt have to live with an unjust and complicated tax system just to keep CPA’s employed–at the expense of the rest of society.  Just as we shouldnt forgo sentencing reform to keep prison guards employed.  In fact foregoing either tax reform or sentencing reform will keep many people employed, but it does so while keeping others in chains.

I had another thought on the nature of income taxes in this nation.  A [so called] progressive income tax is a violation of the 14th Amendment to our Constitution.  Section 1 of this Amendment states that the government may not “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”  This doesnt just apply to giving preferential or discriminatory treatment to people of different races or religions.  The Amendment prevents denying equal protection of the laws to all people.  This includes the rich as well as the poor.

Hawk, you are right that a debate is needed on taxes at this point.  This is exactly why FairTax supporters are proposing a Constitutional Amendment to repeal the 16th Amendment and allow for a tax on consumption.  The Constitutional Amendment process is a long and cumbersome one which would force this proposed change to be debated in the halls of Congress, the halls of State Legislatures, and most importantly among the citizenry itself.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

I am not against all forms of taxation.  I am not an anarchist.  I understand that a government must exist to protect the rights of its citizens.  I understand that we need a military, a police force, and a well funded and objective court system.  It is not the taxation in and of itself that bothers me; it is the mode of taxation.  Even if you believe that the government should be in the business of building highways and providing social programs, a tax on income is immoral and is the wrong way for the government to collect funds.  A broad based consumption tax would be less intrusive than an income tax and would be able to provide the government with all necessary funds.  A tax on consumption is less intrusive than an income tax, does not discourage production, and does not reduce the laborers of this nation to involuntary servants–as does a tax on income.

For years, income taxes have been accepted by most people as a necessary evil.  Recently, however, a growing number of us have realized that while they are an evil, they are not necessary.

Many people do not realize that the income tax in this country is less than 100 years old.  Thats right.  The 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913, meaning that we had survived as a Nation for 137 years without an income tax.

A tax is an inducement to change behavior.  If you want to decrease smoking, you levy a tax on cigarettes.  If you want to discourage consumption of fatty foods, you levy a tax on those food items, as the city of New York is doing.  If you want to discourage speeding, you levy a tax on speeding (through a speed limit and fines).  If you want to discourage driving, you levy a tax on gasoline. If you want to discourage pollution, you levy a tax on carbon emissions, as President Obama has proposed.

And yet, the same people who openly admit that the above facts are true fail to admit that a tax on income can discourage wealth accumulation.  Taxes on income create disincentives to save, disincentives to invest, and disincentives to engage is risky entrepreneurial activities including starting new businesses or investing in new technologies or potential inventions.

But, besides economic issues, there are moral issues that need to be considered.

This blog is my property.  I use my mind to think about what to write and I write using my own hands.  I have advertisements on this blog that pay me money in exchange for referring my readers to their services.  Any money that I make from these advertisements is a direct result of me using my mind to write.  The government forces me to pay income tax on these advertisements, effectively taxing the products of my mind.  Even worse, the government uses the money that it expropriates from my mind to “serve the common good.”  They use it to fund social programs for others, without my consent or approval.

The same is of course true for any job.  Anyone who works is forced to pay income taxes.  The fact that everyone is forced to do pay them does not make it any less wrong.  Anyone who refuses to pay their income taxes risks being thrown in jail, hence the above usage of the word “force.”

On top of this, the government takes these taxes levied on the labor of men and uses them to fund social programs.  These programs provide money, health care, or other services to selected groups of people.

Think about this.  The government taxes your labor through force and gives it to others for their benefit.  In other words, you are being forced to work for benefit of others.  A person who serves others against their will is called a slave.  By using forced labor to fund social programs, the government has turned all workers into slaves.

The 13th Amendment bans both slavery and involuntary servitude.  Any tax which has the result of forcing one to work for the benefit of others is a blatant violation of the 13th Amendment.

In the Soviet Union, workers were forced to labor in order to build roads, highways, other public works, and provide for the welfare of their fellow citizens.  Here in the United States, the fruits of the labor of hard working Americans is expropriated in order to build roads, highways, other public works, and provide for the welfare of our fellow citizens.

The Soviets were threatened with being sent to Siberian prisons if they refused to obey.  Here in America, we are threatened with prison if we refuse to obey.  The end result is the same:  obey or lose your freedom.

No matter how much you feel that we “need” these social programs, you cannot deny the fact that the government is using forced labor (taxes taken by force and derived from the labor of men) to fund these programs.  As I said above, this is a blatant violation of the 13th Amendment.

Besides embodying a form of forced labor, our tax system is intrusive and does not respect the privacy of Americans.  The Supreme Court cited the right to privacy when it declared abortion to be legal.  Intrusive income taxes are a violation of privacy rights in the most basic form of the right.

The government expropriation of private citizens income for the purpose of protection is no more moral than the mafia doing the same to businesses in its sphere of control.  The only difference between the two scenarios is that the governments’ actions carry the force of law, while the mafia’s actions are outside the law.  However, the fact that there is a law behind an action does not make the action moral.  There were laws supporting discrimination against Jews in Nuremberg and against African-Americans in the American South, yet the force of law behind an action does not make it correct.  In the above example, both the government and the mafia collect the money through extortion.  They will both cause you harm if you refuse to pay, and they both justify their monetary expropriations on the grounds of protection.

And the sad thing about the above example is that if you were to pay both the government and the mafia for protection and you needed a favor, there could be little doubt that the mafia would be the one who would deliver the favor.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook