I agree with you. It is sheer lunacy and stupidity to keep alive a system of taxation which has proven to be the root cause of so many of our nation’s sufferings. Is our current federal tax system not used by our federal government as a weapon against political foes, and to silence free speech? Is it not used to intentionally seek out our most productive and hardworking citizens, who are then taxed directly on their earned wages which is then used by corrupted politicians to buy the votes of those who have been made dependent upon “free government cheese”? Is it not also used by Congress to generate class warfare and divide American Citizens into countless factious groups, each of which attack each other and seek to benefit from unequal tax law? And how about the billions of dollars wasted each year by America’s taxpayers to conform to its regulations and record keeping, and its mandatory divulgence of personal information? Is this not in itself a cause to reject this hideous and oppressive form of taxation?
The fact is, I agree with you fully, and that is why I support going back to our Constitution’s original tax plan which would go a long way to end the tyranny which Congress carries out under the guise of taxation.
Keep in mind that if our Constitution’s original tax plan were in effect, Congress would be forced to finance its functions from imposts, duties, and excise taxes on specifically selected articles of consumption, preferably articles of luxury. Raising revenue as described above limits Congress’ revenue to taxes on consumption. Hamilton, in Federalist No. 21 points out with regard to taxes on consumption,
“There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counter balanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.
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.”
Let us say for conversation purposes that Congress is only allowed to raise its revenue by selecting specific articles of luxury and placing a specific amount of tax on each article selected. The flow of revenue into the federal treasury under such an idea would of course be determined by the economic productivity of the nation. If the economy is healthy and thriving and employment is at a peak, the purchase of articles of luxury will be greater than if the economy is stagnant and depressed. And thus, Congress is encouraged to adopt policies favorable to a healthy and vibrant economy because the flow of revenue into the federal treasury can be disrupted should Congress adopt oppressive regulations which impeded and burden our founder’s intended free market system.
And so, if Congress is limited to raising its revenue by taxing specifically selected articles of luxury, it suddenly becomes in Congress’ best interest to work toward a healthy and vibrant economy which in turn produces a productive flow of revenue into the federal treasury! It should also be noted that taxing any specific article too high, will reduce the volume of its sales and diminish the flow of revenue into the national treasury, and thus, taxing in this manner allows the market place to determine the allowable amount of tax on each article selected as Hamilton indicates above.
Some may claim that if Congress is required to select each specific article for taxation and place a specific amount of tax on each article, such a system would invite abuse and allow Congress to exercise favoritism with impunity and would certainly pander to countless lobbyists looking for an advantage in the selection of taxable articles. But let us take a closer look at the consequences involved if Congress should attempt to abuse this power. If Congress should abuse the system and tax one article while excluding another for political gain, consumers are treated to a tax free article and Congress reduces its own flow of revenue into the national treasury. In addition, for every penny lost by excluding a lobbyist’s particular article from taxation, another article’s tax will have to be increased to reclaim that penny. And with each increase upon any specific article the reality of diminished sales becomes a very sobering factor for Congress to deal with as explained by Hamilton in Federalist No. 21.
Finally, under our Constitution’s original tax plan, let us remember that if Congress does not raise sufficient revenue from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on specifically chosen article of consumption and spends more than is brought in which creates a deficit, it is at this time that the apportioned tax is to be used to extinguish the deficit created, and each state’s congressional delegation must return home with a bill in hand for its state’s apportioned share of this tax and place this burden upon their Governor and State Legislature, and would deplete their own state’s treasury.
The bottom line is, what do you think would happen if California’s big spending Congressional Delegation had to return home with a bill for its citizens to pay an apportioned share to extinguish the 2014 federal deficit? I kind of think tea parties would change to tar and feather parties and big spenders in Congress would
REAP THEIR JUST REWARDSfor their irresponsible and tyrannical spending.
Why is it that not one of our “conservative” media personalities [Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Doc Thompson, Lee Rodgers, Neal Boortz, Mike Huckabee, Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, Herman Cain, etc.] will discuss the wisdom of our Constitution’s original tax plan, especially when it paved the way to not only control Congress, but created the economic underpinning which led to America becoming the economic marvel of the world?
JWK
Are you really ok with 45 percent of our nation’s population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation’s hard working and productive population has contributed into our federal treasury via taxes on incomes when our Constitution requires “Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States”?
