Tags: taxes | president | congress

Taxes — A Choice of Fair Share or Equal Share

By Denis Kleinfeld
Monday, 29 Aug 2011 08:09 AM Current | Bio | Archive

When you go to McDonald’s do you see any accountants waiting for you to fill out tax forms before you order? What about lawyers, enrolled agents, or insurance salesmen? Does anyone need to hire a lobbyist to buy a cheeseburger?

What if someone goes into McDonald’s (or some other restaurant) and orders a cheeseburger, fries, and a Coke.The total comes to, say, $2.14 — $2for the food and 14 cents for the tax. In 30 seconds, the customer is eating, McDonald’s is paid, and the government has its tax.

No tax accountants, lawyers, ombudsmen, or federal tax agents. Nobody examining every detail of your life with the threat of throwing you in jail if they find something amiss. No lobbyists making "campaign contributions" to politicians.

That's equality.

Let's take another example. Somebody goes into Burger King and orders a cheeseburger, fries, and a Dr. Pepper. He and his wife tell the person behind the counter that they have five kids and no money. Burger King gives him seven hamburgers, fries, and Dr. Peppers for free. It also gives them a coupon to comeback for seven more meals. No tax paid.

Right after that somebody comes in and orders a cheeseburger, fries, and a milk-shake. The person behind the counter asks if he has money. He says yes. "Well, then," the counterperson says, "since you’re rich, your total is $27.82. Twenty-six bucks for the food and a $1.82 for tax. Please sign and date the sales receipt under penalty of perjury."

That's "fair share."

Now some people think that because the marginal rates of tax in our income tax system are "progressive," that mystically the tax becomes "fair."

Au Contraire.

As was argued in Knowlton v. Moore before the enactment of the federal income tax in 1913, this "progressive" taxation is nothing more than "scaffolding for plunder. The dissenting argument is very persuasive with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight”

The majority of the Supreme Court, as one would expect, came up with another of their disconnected-from reality-decisions when they approved progressive tax rates and deep-sixed any concept of limiting governmental intrusion on personal liberties.

In the majorities opinion, "The grave consequences which is asserted must arise in the future if the right to levy a progressive tax be recognized involves in its ultimate aspect the mere assertion that free and representative government is a failure, and the grossest abuses of power are foreshadowed."

When the 1913 constitutional amendment was passed, there was, of course, a constitutional challenge. The Supreme Court answered with a basic one-line decision. The assertion that progressive rates of income tax were unconstitutional in income taxation was without merit by stating that the argument was in "absolute want of foundation in reason."

Let’s fast forward to Aug. 29, 2011. Is there anybody in the entire United States who isn't complaining that Congress now and in the past is a failure. And, a lot feel the same way about our past and current presidents.

Clearly, the multitudinous federal tax law enacted by every Congress and signed into law by every president has become the epitome, the apex, the zenith of abuse of power. And even more egregious, it tramples on every principle of justice which the Constitution was established to guarantee.

This is the fault of government — Congress, the president, and the Supreme Court.

The government has chosen to make the tax law evil instead of good, destructive  of the economy rather that making us more prosperous and secure, and it leaves the taxpayers in fear instead of being free from fear.

The federal tax law is turning the United States into a political, if not actual ,gulag instead of a bastion of individual freedoms.

What may be the solution? 

Since all the money for tax revenues comes out of the same economy, it is not a question of tax.

It is, however, a question of what tax system would be most efficient, encourage capitalism and a free market economy, support the security of the country, allow our relationships with our trading partners and foreign investors to be profitable for all, cut off the source of monetary fuel that stokes the fires of corruption (actual, political, and intellectual) that has engulfed all three branches of government, and be truly voluntary.

Clearly, a consumption tax system tops the list to achieve those goals. But the critics say it would be unfair to the poor and, besides, all the tax people working for the government have a union. Don't mess with the union.

No problem. How about a consumption tax system with those 50% of the population that don't pay any income tax now receiving some amount of credit, provided by a government issued monthly top-upped money card.

But the abuses and fraud? That's handled by having half of the government's tax workers employed in issuing the money cards and the other half employed in investigating the frauds. 

And a consumption tax is truly voluntary. Whatever is not spent because of free choice on consumption is saved or invested. These are the key behaviors to a successful capitalistic free-market economy.

When you think it through, there doesn't seem to be any other choice.

 

 

© 2017 Newsmax Finance. All rights reserved.

1Like our page
2Share
Kleinfeld
When you go to McDonald s do you see any accountants waiting for you to fill out tax forms before you order? What about lawyers, enrolled agents, or insurance salesmen? Does anyone need to hire a lobbyist to buy a cheeseburger?What if someone goes into McDonald s (or some...
taxes,president,congress
861
2011-09-29
 

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

NEWSMAX.COM
MONEYNEWS.COM
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved