.
![]() ![]() ![]() How to End the Income Tax and the IRSNelson Hultberg Could such a spectacular reform really be brought about? Yes, it certainly could. But before I explain how, first a brief analysis of some of the philosophical and psychological roadblocks that need to be confronted in laying the groundwork for totally abolishing the income tax and the IRS from our lives in America. Feeding the Factions The nature of 21st century
American politics is that our office seekers win continual re-election,
not by preserving the peace and protecting people's basic rights
as the Founders advocated, but by granting privileges, subsidies
and pork barrel programs to favored segments of the people. If we are ever to rid ourselves of the income tax and the IRS, then there must be a genuine reform of this corrupt and grandiose game of buying votes with wealth transfers. A viable political party must come forth to publicly ask, "Whose yard is this?" The operating premise of liberal welfarism has to be challenged -- that government has the right to utilize progressive tax rates to redistribute people's earnings. A uniform tax rate system must be proposed, fought for, and enacted into law. Until this is done, the social welfare game of "tax and spend, elect and re-elect" cannot be reformed. Ever--expanding, centralized government cannot be stopped. As I have pointed out in previous
articles, the reason why abolishing progressive income
tax rates is so important is because there would then be no incentive
for voters to try and gain their life's status by relentlessly
increasing government spending, i.e., by redistributing wealth
from the pockets of their neighbors. A uniform tax rate is thus
the only way to restore a responsible electorate and legislature.
And as we will soon see, it is the first crucial step to total
eradication of the income tax and the IRS. So far, Republicans have shown
little indication that they grasp the importance of such thinking.
Their love affair with the Forbes-Armey flat tax plans shows
either that their true motive is merely more central-ized government,
or that they are frightfully ignorant about the requisites of
genuine reform. This is because the Forbes-Armey flat tax plans
actually increase the rate progressivity of our income
tax system. This they do by dramatically increasing personal
exemptions for the taxpayer. A family of four's total exemptions
leaps from $16,700 under our present system to $34,000 under
Armey's version of the plan and $36,000 under Forbes' version. Challenging the Establishment Tyranny Naturally the liberal establishment
raises quite a squawk over any mention of tax uniformity. "Would
it be wise," they ask, "to radically change our tax
system so as to tax all Americans the same percentage of what
they earn or what they spend? We believe that the present tax
code is fundamentally more fair than a one-size fits all system." The Naivety of IRS "Reform" This then is the first requisite
for our leaders in Congress -- to face up to the unconstitutionality
of progressive rates. But equally as important, our legislators
must also stiffen their spines against the bete noir of
all taxpayers -- the IRS. Republicans have always been sensitive
to the people's growing unrest over the IRS, but as in the past,
they approach the issue in a typically naive and superficial
manner. A national sales tax is not salable at this time because it requires a 15%-23% rate at today's government spending level. So spending needs to be reduced dramatically first. The American people would readily vote for a 7% national sales tax, but they will continue to balk at a 15%-23% national sales tax. It's just psychologically too much to overcome. The first step in gaining this goal is to eliminate "infinite demand" for government services. And as we have seen, the only means to accomplish this is to enact a true equal-rate income tax, which means no exemptions for anyone. This will effectively reverse the culture of spending in Washington and begin a steady reduction of government. How to Handle the Establishment Backlash As I have pointed out in previous articles, liberals and me-too conservatives will naturally attack any genuine equal-rate tax as unfair to the poor people. So if a floor is to be established under which no one will have to pay the tax, i.e., an exemption for those under the poverty level, then a provision should be included in any equal-rate tax bill stating that those who are exempted from paying are also to be excluded from voting. After all, we deny children the right to vote. Why do we do this? Because they are not mature enough to vote responsibly. The same principle applies to men and women who are exempt from taxes; they will never vote responsibly. They will possess "infinite demand" for government services. Liberals will, of course, protest vehemently upon hearing such a proposal; but if one thinks the issue through, he will see that it is really the only solution if a large segment of voters is going to be exempt from paying taxes. There is no other way to stop infinite demand for government services unless everyone who casts a vote has a stake in doing it responsibly. Both logic and history provide ample justification for societies to decide who among their members are to receive the franchise. All nations throughout the history of democratic governments have always determined according to certain criteria who should, and who should not, be allowed to vote. Never does any nation allow EVERYONE to vote. For example, we stipulate that all those who are under 18 years of age cannot vote. We also say that all those who are mentally unbalanced cannot vote. So we the citizenry decide who can and cannot vote. And our decision is based upon who we feel will be responsible. Reason and experience, if used judiciously, are very good guides as to who this should be. Why then cannot we the citizenry redefine from time to time our conception of what constitutes "responsible?" Societies have always done such defining and redefining. In 1787, the Founders required voters to be male and to own property. That, of course, is too extreme according to our way of thinking today. Women are obviously capable of voting responsibly, and so are non-property owners. The requirement of property ownership was gradually rooted out of the system over the decades by the state governments; and the states of Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah led the way for women's suffrage by granting voting rights to women in the 1890's. This culminated in 1920 with the 19th Amendment to the Constitution to allow all adult women to vote throughout America. Again in 1971 we re-evaluated our conception of responsibility when we lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. (Unfortunately this latter reform was a mistake. We should have raised the age to 25 years old; but that's another argument for another day.) The point is that we, as a society, have the right and the duty to define just who can and who cannot "vote responsibly." Our modern intellectuals and politicians have egregiously defaulted on this by allowing everyone to vote even though they don't pay anything to support the system. This must be corrected. The major roadblock to overcome here is that we have all been taught that unlimited democracy is some sort of nirvana, and that everyone must vote in order for us to have a just, civilized society. Thus any policy to the contrary will be a tough idea to embrace. But embrace it we must, or we will collapse into dictatorship over the next two decades. Think of it this way. Is it rational to continue creating "infinite demand" for government services among 50% of the people, while attempting to reduce government? No, it's not. Just like it's not rational to try and put out a bonfire with buckets of water while tolerating a massive fire hose pouring kerosene into the fire. The dictatorial powers that are developing in Washington today have come about because 50% of the citizenry possess "infinite demand" for government services. This demand is the kerosene hose that is allowing the fire of government to relentlessly expand. We the producers of America are becoming slaves to these tyrants and their ever-expanding fire. Continuing to go up against such an inferno with little water buckets of pseudo tax reform (such as the Forbes-Armey "flat" tax plans) is senseless and embarrassing to anyone who can think clearly. In this writer's opinion, the ideal solution to this problem of infinite demand among the voters is to provide no tax exemptions at all, and simply require everyone to pay a 10% flat tax no matter what their income is. This would comport best with the principle of "equality under the law." Everyone pays proportionally, i.e., the same rate. Thus, the law treats everyone the same, and no one's vote would have to be denied. Such a policy would quite quickly bring about a dramatic reduction of government, and as a result, a substantial reduction of taxes. We could probably have a flat tax of 5% within a decade or two. Is it too much to ask a man who makes $5,000 in a year to pay $250 to support the government that protects his rights and preserves domestic order for he and his family? I don't think so. If this is too horrifying to contemplate for the advocates of "compassionate conservatism," then such conservatives need to seriously rethink what has to be done to save our country. Is not the underlying source of all government growth today the fact that we have become a nation of voters and legislators who are living irresponsibly and totally out of control? Thus our paramount concern must be to RESTORE A RESPONSIBLE ELECTORATE AND LEGISLATURE. But this cannot be done if voters get their services free. The only way voters will act responsibly is if they are contributing proportionately to the cost of government. This is not rocket science; it is simple, basic, observable human nature. To blind ourselves to this truth (as liberals have done for 90 years) is inexcusable. To all pundits throughout America
who profess to favor a free society, if you are too squeamish
to demand eradication of the primary source of exploding government,
then our society is doomed. You might as well fold up your tents
and head to the local pub to wallow in inebriation every day,
rather than to your computers and printing presses to try and
influence your fellow man as to the true meaning of our country.
If you can't bring yourselves to tell the truth to the people,
then you have no business presenting yourselves as educators,
writers, galvanizers. You have fashioned a make-believe world
and are merely playacting as patriot intellectuals. Radical tax reform is the great unifying cause that can break the stranglehold collectivism has over our country's politics. Americans are ready to scrap the income tax. Yet this monumental policy reform will not happen unless conservatives, libertarians and independents unify behind the only viable path to that goal. The path is constructed of four steps: 1) We must truly end
progressive rates by enacting an equal-rate tax for everyone.
It would start at a revenue-neutral rate somewhere between 10%-15%.
2) This reform will allow us to then dramatically reduce government
spending to a level that can be funded with 7% rates and lower.
3) This will allow us to then substitute a national sales tax
for the income tax. 4) This will allow us to then abolish the
IRS because the state sales tax agencies can collect all payments
and forward the money to Washington. Voila! No more income tax,
and no more IRS. The federal Leviathan would be stopped. A constitutional
amendment could then be passed prohibiting the Federal Government
from taxing the incomes of the American people in any way whatsoever.
Notes 1. Letter to S. Kercheval, 1816. Saul K. Padover, ed, Thomas Jefferson On Democracy (New American Library, no date), pp. 34-35. Emphasis added. 2. Harold Syvelt, ed., The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, vol. III (New York, 1962) p. 104. Cited in Charles Adams, "Our Income Taxation: The Darker Side," Manassas, VA: Citizens for an Alternative Tax System [no date], p. 6. 3. David Hume, The Philosophical Works, vol. 3 (London, 1882) pp. 356-360. Cited in Adams, Ibid, p. 6. 4. J.R. McCulloch, Taxation and the Funding System (London, 1845), pp. 141-143. Cited in Charles Adams, For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes On the Course of Civilization (Lanham, MD: Madison Books, 1993), p. 365. Emphasis added. 5. Justice Stephen J. Field, Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 607 (1894). Cited in Adams, Ibid., p. 370. Apr 14, 2005
|