It’s Time for Real Reform
Now that the Congress has had a refresher course on the mutual compact we as Americans rely on as our guide to government, isn’t it about time we get back to first principles? As I watched and listened to our elected leaders make history by the reading of the Constitution in the well of the House, I wondered if the reading was actually sinking in. Just in case our elected leaders caught “religion,” so to speak, and decided to return to the simplified government intended by our nation’s founders, I’d like to offer the new 112th Congress some help in this regard. Think big and return to small government. Start with the economy, please.
The current president fancies himself a big thinker, with big ideas for big change. Let me throw out an idea that I think will reform our government and rein in the spending that threatens our very nation’s existence. Tax reform must be front and center in this debate. Rumors abound that Mr. Obama may adopt a simplified tax code proposed by his debt commission. The new tax code would lower corporate income taxes, the second highest in the world, and would reduce the number of personal income tax brackets from six to three. The top tax bracket would be 23%, the middle bracket would be 14%, and the low bracket would be 8%. This would be a small start. It’s hardly worthy of such a big thinker like Mr. Obama. I’d suggest a flat tax. Aside from eliminating liberals’ beloved ability to double tax the same income, according to analysis done by the Heritage Foundation, all flat tax proposals have one “loophole” that helps the working poor. Households receive a generous exemption based on family size. For instance, a family of four would not begin to pay tax until its annual income reached more than $30,000.
I’ve always viewed taxes as a device that we the people use to tell our government just how much they can spend. It’s high time Americans started looking at taxes in the same light.
The Congress of the United States would have to be ready to give up control over the people’s money. If, by some miracle of heaven, we find a majority in the Congress that will give up that control, we can begin to save our nation from crushing debt. Once a flat tax was adopted, a balanced budget amendment would also need to be enacted. I’ll leave the legal language to the politicians. But the amendment should restrict the Congress to spending 20% less than the amount of money brought in, through taxes, in the previous budget year. All surpluses would go into a rainy day fund. I will offer one bit of “law language”: THE CONGRESS SHALL NOT SPEND MORE THAN THE ALLOWED AMOUNT DICTATED BY THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT. The only exception would be national emergencies. Those emergencies would be certified by the president and a 2/3 majority vote in Congress. The funds would come from the rainy day fund. That fund could also sustain the government when tax revenue fell short for the current fiscal year. In a sustained need for more funds, i.e., war, the Congress could only pass tax increases that were subject to annual renewal. Congressmen and senators must also be made responsible for all money allocated to every section of government. I’ll leave it to the party bosses to assign each lawmaker based on seniority or expertise. But all dollars spent by Congress should be accountable and traceable to a member of Congress.
The people should make it clear to members of Congress that it is we the people who control tax rates, not the Washington ruling class. The American people should no longer have to suffer because of the ill-conceived social experimentation of lawmakers. But who would monitor our elected officials? Well, it turns out there’s an existing federal agency that would have a lot of time on its hands with the passage of the flat tax.
I think you’ve nailed it right on the head. A dual philosophy that denies income to the bureaucratic beast while at the same time denying it the ability to simply print money to get around that denial of money is the answer.
Billions of dollars are wasted overseas alone in corruption and payouts to Third World considerations. This is proof positive that our government has too much income, not enough. In effect, this means our taxes are far too high. Slash those taxes so that politicians have to actually think before they come up with corrupt DREAM Acts and plans to prop up Yemen.
Chris – headed in the right direction, but not quite there. ONE rate for all types of income, no deductions other than cost of goods for businesses, no difference between individuals and corporations. This means no incentive to game the system, no subsidizing home ownership by renters, and everyone knows the true cost of what government they are buying. Include so-called social security in the rate (its just a tax folks, that’s what the courts have already ruled). Pay from the first dollar, too. The right rate is about 18% btw. Of course we’ll need some spending cuts to make it balance, but very achievable based on the last 50 years of experience.
Chris,
Interesting article; however I submit the singular role of government is to protect the Life, Liberty and Property of the People. As a result, taxation by any means runs coutner to this purpose. The government could fund itself by simply “printing” fiat currency; inflation (the growth of currency NOT prices) would not be too high since governement is quite smal with the singular purpose of protecting Life, Liberty and Property.
In fact, the IRS was created not as a means to collect taxes but to establish a dossier on the citizenry. Taxation was simply used as a pretext to make it seem….acceptable.
A good idea. A flat income tax would serve the interest of “social justice” by ensuring that everyone pays “according to his ability” and that all have proportionally “equal” skin in the game.
At a time when a reported forty-plus percent of the American people pay no income tax whatsoever, it isn’t difficult to predict how that forty-plus percent will vote when the question of increasing the tax burden on everyone but himself or herself is being considered.
A flat tax would introduce a universally personal component to tax increase proposals and would promote more sober public consideration of such proposals–and, by extension, the expenditures driving them.
A flat tax may or may not be the answer in the long run, but an immediate step could be taken by the House of Representatives. They have the power of exercising limitations on spending, which they could use to de-fund much, if not all, of Obama’s socialistic and unconstitutional programs that the occupant of the White House has bribed into law. This could be the telling power in returning our country to something that makes sense to conservative ideals, and the House finally has the needed makeup to do so.
Even if, by some miracle this were to occur, it would only be a matter of time before it began to morph back into what we already have. If you want real, irrevocable change we need to dissolve the IRS and the covernment’s ability to tax ANY income. A better idea is a flat national sales tax. Everyone is taxed on what they spend and they control how much tax they pay based on how much they save. Everyone shares the burden at the same threshold and no one gets ANY exemptions whatsoever. And the IRS – it becomes redundant and gets the ax! What’s not to like?
I would like to see a flat tax that everyone above the poverty rate, up to and including the Corporations pay the same flat tax based on gross earnings for the individual as well as Corporate gross earnings.
Your tax money is too important to leave to ANY politicians. And ALL taxes, Muni, State and Federal should be subject to referendums on debt ceilings.
The Tea Party should sponsor a bill of “Taxpayer’s Rights”
-Taxpayers should not be held accountable regardless of taxpayer ability to pay.
-The average taxpayer with little or no retirement savings should not have to pay for the lavish excesses of government union retirees.
-The Health Care Law and other laws that mandate expenses beyond the taxpayers ability to pay should be declared illegal or at least legally bankrupt.
Only the taxpayer will properly control the spending as he/she is the only one exposed to the moral hazard of the resulting debt.
Obama didn’t give America health care, he gave it unfunded health insurance.
I agree with most of the writer’s ideas but… I feel there needs to be better protections from political parties who love to find ways around any law or constitutional amendment. If the proposed was enacted, there would be a continuous “national emergency” thereafter. If the people would not buy the national emergency argument, the government would manufacture a national emergency, i.e. war, energy, you name it. Government purchases should be taken out of the politician’s hands and put into a third party procurement inanity and make it illegal for politicians to influence their decisions. Make individuals responsible and accountable for the tax money they control. Get the government out of the healthcare business and privatize social security but make sure the government reimburses every dime they took from the fund. I believe the Federal government should be limited to the powers given it by the States, not the other way around. This doesn’t mean the commerce clause can be used to control anything other than promoting free unabridged trade between the States.