•2:01 PM
The stated views of taxation between the two main parties are very different. The Democrat Party favors a progressive tax system. Here is the text from their party platform:
"First, we must restore our values to our tax code. We want a tax code that rewards work and creates wealth for more people, not a tax code that hoards wealth for those who already have it. With the middle class under assault like never before, we simply cannot afford the massive Bush tax cuts for the very wealthiest. We should set taxes for families making more than $200,000 a year at the same level as in the late 1990s, a period of great prosperity when the wealthiest Americans thrived without special treatment. We will cut taxes for 98 percent of Americans and help families meet the economic challenges of their everyday lives. And we will oppose tax increases on middle class families, including those living abroad."
On the other side of the isle, the Republican Party platform states:
"The fundamental premise of tax relief is that everyone who pays income taxes should see their income taxes reduced."
In my opinion, the definition of “fundamental premise” means they believe in a more conservative approach to taxation than the democrats but a progressive approach nonetheless. Their tax reforms did not eliminate our current progressive tax system – it only gave it a band-aid.
Our country was based on certain unalienable rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Adam Smith defined the pursuit of happiness as property rights. What I earn, what I buy, and what is given to me is inherently and completely mine. I have ownership of those items. What you earn, purchase or receive as a gift is likewise yours. I have no right to take them and you have no right to take what is mine. To do otherwise would be stealing and punishable by the law.
Government operates on the exact same laws that you and I operate on. As the Declaration of Independence states, it derives “its powers from the governed.” It cannot derive powers from the governed that the governed do not of themselves possess. It is not possible – to do otherwise is tyrannical and contra the principles upon which Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and others ascribed their most sacred honor and founded this nation upon.
Because of this, taxation at the start of our nation was principally a sales tax and was declared that it ought to remain so. Below is an excerpt from Federalist #21 by Alexander Hamilton:
"It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.
Impositions of this kind usually fall under the denomination of indirect taxes, and must for a long time constitute the chief part of the revenue raised in this country."
Did you catch that last sentence? Why is it then that the majority of the government's revenue comes from an income tax? I am not sure I have the answer to my question but one thing I do know, that our income tax system is immoral and free people should demand its abolition or extreme revision in favor of a flat tax.
Why is our tax code immoral and why does it require revision? Our tax code has become a tool of manipulation by the government to encourage or discourage certain behaviors, favor certain businesses and not others and to tax people at different rates based on their income. I am reminded of one of the points from the Communist Manifesto giving clarity to the beliefs of communism: “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”
Not that all of the principles of communism are bad or inherently wrong. However, this principle gives the government the power to take away from everyone – the rich as well as the poor, the fortuned as well as the unfortunate – and giving the government the distinct power to choose who to take more from and who to give more too. Such a principle is inherently evil and makes of the government a thief and a bully – a bully so big that everyone just accepts the fact that he will win and rather than be beat up every day at lunchtime just to have the bully take our money away we line up and say, “Here Uncle Sam – please take this. I promise this is what I owe you.”
I think people cringe in disbelief when it is proposed that the government is also capable of stealing and that our tax system is in fact just that. We would rather believe that somehow it is right for them to take our money because we have a democratic process whereby we choose our representatives. However, Our government has adopted this principle of the manifesto – knowingly or unknowingly it doesn’t really matter. What matters is that we need to do something about it.
I support legislation that would eliminate the income tax and restore the source of revenue to the one established by the founders: an indirect tax (i.e., the sales tax).
To learn more about exciting legislation that is gaining traction in congress, please visit:
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer
"First, we must restore our values to our tax code. We want a tax code that rewards work and creates wealth for more people, not a tax code that hoards wealth for those who already have it. With the middle class under assault like never before, we simply cannot afford the massive Bush tax cuts for the very wealthiest. We should set taxes for families making more than $200,000 a year at the same level as in the late 1990s, a period of great prosperity when the wealthiest Americans thrived without special treatment. We will cut taxes for 98 percent of Americans and help families meet the economic challenges of their everyday lives. And we will oppose tax increases on middle class families, including those living abroad."
On the other side of the isle, the Republican Party platform states:
"The fundamental premise of tax relief is that everyone who pays income taxes should see their income taxes reduced."
In my opinion, the definition of “fundamental premise” means they believe in a more conservative approach to taxation than the democrats but a progressive approach nonetheless. Their tax reforms did not eliminate our current progressive tax system – it only gave it a band-aid.
Our country was based on certain unalienable rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Adam Smith defined the pursuit of happiness as property rights. What I earn, what I buy, and what is given to me is inherently and completely mine. I have ownership of those items. What you earn, purchase or receive as a gift is likewise yours. I have no right to take them and you have no right to take what is mine. To do otherwise would be stealing and punishable by the law.
Government operates on the exact same laws that you and I operate on. As the Declaration of Independence states, it derives “its powers from the governed.” It cannot derive powers from the governed that the governed do not of themselves possess. It is not possible – to do otherwise is tyrannical and contra the principles upon which Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and others ascribed their most sacred honor and founded this nation upon.
Because of this, taxation at the start of our nation was principally a sales tax and was declared that it ought to remain so. Below is an excerpt from Federalist #21 by Alexander Hamilton:
"It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.
Impositions of this kind usually fall under the denomination of indirect taxes, and must for a long time constitute the chief part of the revenue raised in this country."
Did you catch that last sentence? Why is it then that the majority of the government's revenue comes from an income tax? I am not sure I have the answer to my question but one thing I do know, that our income tax system is immoral and free people should demand its abolition or extreme revision in favor of a flat tax.
Why is our tax code immoral and why does it require revision? Our tax code has become a tool of manipulation by the government to encourage or discourage certain behaviors, favor certain businesses and not others and to tax people at different rates based on their income. I am reminded of one of the points from the Communist Manifesto giving clarity to the beliefs of communism: “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”
Not that all of the principles of communism are bad or inherently wrong. However, this principle gives the government the power to take away from everyone – the rich as well as the poor, the fortuned as well as the unfortunate – and giving the government the distinct power to choose who to take more from and who to give more too. Such a principle is inherently evil and makes of the government a thief and a bully – a bully so big that everyone just accepts the fact that he will win and rather than be beat up every day at lunchtime just to have the bully take our money away we line up and say, “Here Uncle Sam – please take this. I promise this is what I owe you.”
I think people cringe in disbelief when it is proposed that the government is also capable of stealing and that our tax system is in fact just that. We would rather believe that somehow it is right for them to take our money because we have a democratic process whereby we choose our representatives. However, Our government has adopted this principle of the manifesto – knowingly or unknowingly it doesn’t really matter. What matters is that we need to do something about it.
I support legislation that would eliminate the income tax and restore the source of revenue to the one established by the founders: an indirect tax (i.e., the sales tax).
To learn more about exciting legislation that is gaining traction in congress, please visit:
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer
