Get PJ Media on your Apple

Belmont Club

The IRS Is Coming!

July 4th, 2013 - 3:12 pm

July The Fourth naturally brings the following verses to mind.

Listen my children and you shall hear
Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere,
On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-five;
Hardly a man is now alive
Who remembers that famous day and year.

Fewer still remember that through the chain of causality Revere was warning that the tax collector — in the shape of its enforcers, the Redcoats — was coming. The War of Independence was to a nontrivial extent about the manner and level at which taxes should be levied. The Declaration’s bill of grievances mentions this explicitly. It said of George III, “he has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.” The problem of course, as Forbes points out, was that George III had run up a deficit fighting the Seven Year’s War.

Great Britain had gotten itself into quite a pickle after the Seven Years’ War which had been expensive to fight. As a result, Britain needed to raise revenue – and quickly. What better way than a series of taxes and tariffs? …

Here’s what really irked the colonists: under the British Constitution, no British subjects could be taxed without the consent of their representatives in Parliament. But the colonies didn’t elect representatives to Parliament. The colonists considered the constant imposition of taxes on them under those circumstances to be unconstitutional. It was, they felt, “taxation without representation.”

Many colonists worried that the attempts to impose taxes would only get worse. They decided to do something about it. Led by Thomas Jefferson, they penned a letter – a declaration of their rights – to be delivered to the King. On July 4, 1776, the day we officially celebrate Independence Day, the wording of the Declaration of Independence was approved by Congress.

The important thing to note was that the founders didn’t “reform” the tax system. They didn’t want to fire the tax collectors from the equivalent of Cincinnati.  They wanted to replace the whole structure.

The key to understanding why this is sensible is in Leo Linbeck’s op-ed published in the Washington Examiner.  He writes of the IRS that “human institutions have this funny habit of appearing to be indissoluble right up to the moment they dissolve.” Bureaucracies age by getting bigger. In that way they are like cancer cells. You can only destroy them and grow healthy tissue in their place.

Morris McTigue, a former Cabinet Minister from New Zealand and more recently on the Performance Management Advisory Committee for the Commonwealth of Virginia explained why only the radical works. An established bureaucracy, like a malignant cell, is almost unkillable. The process is akin to angiogenesis. Tumors make their own blood vessels and keep making them until they starve out the healthy cells.

What I have been discussing is really just a new way of thinking about government. Let me tell you how we solved our deer problem: Our country had no large indigenous animals until the English imported deer for hunting. These deer proceeded to escape into the wild and become obnoxious pests. We then spent 120 years trying to eliminate them, until one day someone suggested that we just let people farm them. So we told the farming community that they could catch and farm the deer, as long as they would keep them inside eight-foot high fences. And we haven’t spent a dollar on deer eradication from that day onwards. Not one. And New Zealand now supplies 40 percent of the world market in venison. By applying simple common sense, we turned a liability into an asset.

Let me share with you one last story: The Department of Transportation came to us one day and said they needed to increase the fees for driver’s licenses. When we asked why, they said that the cost of relicensing wasn’t being fully recovered at the current fee levels. Then we asked why we should be doing this sort of thing at all. The transportation people clearly thought that was a very stupid question: Everybody needs a driver’s license, they said. I then pointed out that I received mine when I was fifteen and asked them: “What is it about relicensing that in any way tests driver competency?” We gave them ten days to think this over. At one point they suggested to us that the police need driver’s licenses for identification purposes. We responded that this was the purpose of an identity card, not a driver’s license. Finally they admitted that they could think of no good reason for what they were doing—so we abolished the whole process! Now a driver’s license is good until a person is 74 years old, after which he must get an annual medical test to ensure he is still competent to drive. So not only did we not need new fees, we abolished a whole department. That’s what I mean by thinking differently.

There are some great things happening along these lines in the United States today. You might not know it, but back in 1993 Congress passed a law called the Government Performance and Results Act. This law orders government departments to identify in a strategic plan what it is that they intend to achieve, and to report each year what they actually did achieve in terms of public benefits. Following on this, two years ago President Bush brought to the table something called the President’s Management Agenda, which sifts through the information in these reports and decides how to respond. These mechanisms are promising if they are used properly. Consider this: There are currently 178 federal programs designed to help people get back to work. They cost $8.4 billion, and 2.4 million people are employed as a result of them. But if we took the most effective three programs out of those 178 and put the $8.4 billion into them alone, the result would likely be that 14.7 million people would find jobs. The status quo costs America over 11 million jobs. The kind of new thinking I am talking about would build into the system a consequence for the administrator who is responsible for this failure of sound stewardship of taxpayer dollars. It is in this direction that the government needs to move.

Leo Linbeck III makes this point precisely. He argues that abolishing the IRS and replacing it is the only rational thing to do. It’s what a private sector manager would do when faced with a similar problem. Any attempts to fix the tax system at the margins would only be swamped by the tumor’s defense mechanisms. Leo writes:

What about the IRS? We will always have taxes, but do we really need the IRS? I believe there is a compelling case that the time has come to end the IRS and restructure the tax system that enables it.

First, as a nation, we have too few jobs and too much consumption. And yet the federal government taxes jobs (wages, profits, capital gains) and gives consumption a free pass. We have an IRS because we tax production; switch to a consumption tax instead of a production tax and we no longer need the IRS, as we know it.

A consumption tax can fund the government. In fact, two of the largest and most vibrant economies in the world run without income, payroll, or capital gains taxes: Florida and Texas. And the federal government operated without an income tax for over 120 years….

That is why the debate about taxes needs to start with fundamentals. Fixing the existing system or “reforming the IRS” will not address the root of the problem: federal revenues coming from taxes on production.

So the place to start is repealing the 16th Amendment. Americans have done this sort of thing before. …

Many will say, “We can’t repeal the 16th Amendment until we agree on what will replace income taxes.” But that is a classic political ploy, and we shouldn’t fall for it.

There are lots of ways to fund the federal government without income taxes, and we don’t need to agree on the solution before we address the root problem. We didn’t need to agree on how to regulate alcohol before repealing the 18th Amendment and ending prohibition.

It is time to redesign our tax system, and the place to start is repealing the 16th Amendment and prohibiting taxes on production. That would bring an end to the 100-year failed experiment of the federal income tax and end the IRS.

Then the real debate about what comes after can begin.

In the old days they worried about the fundamentals. The refinements could come later.

Did you know that you can purchase some of these books and pamphlets by Richard Fernandez and share them with you friends? They will receive a link in their email and it will automatically give them access to a Kindle reader on their smartphone, computer or even as a web-readable document.

Rebranding Christianity for $3.99
The Three Conjectures at Amazon Kindle for $1.99
Storming the Castle at Amazon Kindle for $3.99
No Way In at Amazon Kindle $8.95, print $9.99
Tip Jar or Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
The New Zealand drivers license story is awesome. It reminds me of a story from my dad, L2.

One of my jobs is running a third-generation family construction business. We build lots of cool stuff, and have a great organization.

L2 ran the business before me (there was a non-family CEO in between), and when he was CEO there was a bill brought before the Texas legislature to require that contractors be licensed by the state.

As the CEO of one of the more prominent construction firms in the state, my dad was invited to testify. He agreed, and went up to Austin for the hearing.

At the hearing, L2 made it perfectly up-front that he was opposed to licensing contractors. This completely flummoxed the sponsors of the bill. "Your firm is clearly qualified, and would easily get a license. The point here is to keep out bad firms that would take advantage of their customers. That is good for you, because it will decrease competition from disreputable firms." (I quote from his memory.)

L2's response was simple.

1. Other states have licensing, and it has not kept disreputable firms from competing. In fact, it made it easier since a state license led customers to think the brigands were reputable.

2. It may decrease competition, but that's not good for the state. Legislators should not concern themselves with the ability of our firm to compete, or our private interest. They should focus on the public interest.

3. Once the state starts licensing firms, it's only a matter of time until they start adding more regulations and prerequisites. Again, that would not be in the public interest.

The legislation never made it out of committee. Tee hee.

This is just one example of how a place like Texas has been able to thrive on a relative basis compared to other states. Whether we can sustain this approach remains to be seen. But it requires people who are prepared to take the long view, and stick to their principles. Folks like L2.

Final note: L2, alas, died peacefully in his sleep on 8 June. He will be missed.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (60)
All Comments   (60)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Part 1 of 2


First of all, the questions you ask are precisely the questions that need to be discussed in Washington DC - how much taxing, how much spending, how much regulation, etc. - but they're not, and they're not gonna be so long as the income tax gravy train is running.

The honest answer to your question is that it is impossible to know exactly how this would evolve. The economy is waaaay to complex to accurately model the effects of switching from production to consumption taxes ex ante.

You can certainly take a pessimistic view, and you may well be right. But if you agree that it's really impossible to predict, then perhaps you'll indulge me as I weave a more optimistic scenario: prices before sales tax adjust significantly downward as all of the embedded taxes in the economy are squeezed out and made more transparent.

To see how this would happen, imagine a corporation, Unsk Speciality Applications (USA), that makes widgets. It is fully vertically integrated, meaning that it mines its own raw materials and uses its own factory for making said widgets. USA sells 100,000 widgets each year for $100 each. It costs $50 to make each widget; half of that is equipment costs and half is labor. USA employs 50 people at an average cost of $50,000 per year. Also, let's assume that 50% of USA profits are reinvested in the business, and 50% are paid out in dividends. So here's USA's income statement:

Widget price: $100.00
Number of widgets sold: 100,000
Revenue: $10,000,000
Labor: $2,500,000
Equipment: $2,500,000
Pretax profit: $5,000,000
Corporate tax (35%): $1,750,000
After tax profit: $3,250,000
Dividends: $1,625,000
Dividend tax (28%): $455,000
After tax payment to investors: $1,170,000

Let's say that USA's owners value the business based upon dividend payments, at an after tax dividend yield of 3%. This means that the value of USA is $39 million.

Now, let's say you eliminate all taxes on production (income, payroll, dividends, etc.). To keep the value of USA the same so that the owners value stays the same, what would happen to prices? Well, we can work the above analysis backwards:

After tax payment to investors: $1,170,000
Dividend tax (0%): $0
Dividends: $1,170,000
After tax profit: $2,340,000
Corporate tax (0%): $0
Pretax profit: $2,340,000
Equipment: $2,500,000
Labor: $2,500,000
Revenue: $7,340,000
Number of widgets sold: 100,000
Widget price: $73.40

Now, for the sake of argument, let's set the tax rate so that a widget still costs $100, including sales tax. We would then have to add this onto the sales price to get the amount the consumer would pay:

Sales tax: $26.60
Retail widget price: $100.00

Now, this may seem like a crazy-high sales tax rate (36.2%) But, in this (admittedly stylized) example, the consumer still pays the same price for the widget. However, that's not all that happened here. We need to take a closer look at labor cost to see the full effect.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Part 2 of 2

Let's say Fred is an average employee at USA. His cost of employment, as I said above, is $50,000. USA provides health insurance at about the national average cost (about $4,800, but I will assume that is $4,787, for reasons that will become obvious in a moment). Here's how that breaks down:

Total cost of employment: $50,000
Payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare, employer share): $3,213
Health insurance: $4,787
Gross pay: $42,000
Payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare, employee share): $3,213
Income tax: $4,061
Take-home pay: $34,726

Now, USA is prepared to pay $50,000 to keep Fred working. If we eliminate all of the taxes imposed on Fred's employment, here's how Fred's new situation looks:

Total cost of employment: $50,000
Health insurance: $4,787
Take-home pay: $45,213

So Fred's take home pay rose by about 30%. Fred now has more money to spend.

Total taxes collected from USA and its employees and owners:

Corporate tax: $1,750,000
Dividend tax: $455,000
Payroll taxes: $321,000
Income taxes: $203,000
Total: $2,729,000

Sales tax: $2,660,000

Ah, that's a problem, right? Tax receipts fell 2.5%. How can this possibly work? Well, there are a few other things that happened here:

1. Fred now has 30% more money in his pocket, so he can afford to buy more stuff, including widgets, so widget sales should increase, which will increase tax receipts.

2. We will be collecting taxes from people who today purchase widgets but don't pay income tax. Those folks can be trust-fund babies or illegal immigrants, depending upon your personal tastes. In other words, the tax base is broader.

3. Since everyone now realizes that a huge chunk of the price of a widget is taxes, the demand for lower taxes and more efficient government increases. I think this is Rurik's point below. Transparency is the friend of good governance.

Anyway, under your scenario of a simple national sales tax, all of the embedded taxes get exposed and paid directly by the consumer, instead of being imposed on producers and hidden in the final price. This has lots of salutary benefits, even before you get to the lowered costs of compliance (about $300B per year), the benefits for domestic manufacturing (US switches from being tax-disadvantaged to being tax-advantaged for manufacturing), and the gutting of the lobby-rent seeker-politician cartel (which corrupts our democratic republic).

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
> “We can’t repeal the 16th Amendment until we agree on what will replace income taxes."

The answer to that is right in the Article I Section 2 of the Constitution.

"... direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers ..."

In the absence of the 16th Amendment, the Federal Government would no longer be authorized to directly collect taxes from the People. Instead, the Federal Government would require the states to collect taxes for the Federal Government, in proportion to the population. If a state had 5% of the U.S. population, it would be required to raise 5% of the taxes required to run the Federal government.

The states could raise those funds in any way they chose. They could have a flat tax, a progressive income tax, a state lottery, oil leases, cigarette taxes, corporate taxes, property taxes. Whatever they chose.

There would be 50 different taxation regimes, probably all slightly different, and the states would be competing with each other to devise the most painless, pro-growth systems of taxation that they could.

There would be no need to come up with a new single system to replace income taxes. The Constitution originally left this job to the states, to experiment with and compete amongst themselves. The founders designed what was almost a market-based approach to tax policy, and, as is the case with most of the Constitutional amendments of the Progressive era, "fixing" what wasn't broken in the Constitution put us on the path to tax tyranny.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment

My sympathy for your loss. May the many burdens you carry now be light.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
A consumption tax. Get rid of the tax collector. What could go wrong? Is there any way the citizenry could fiddle the new system?
Upon what do we levy the tax? During the 1770s, the Colonists switched from tea to coffee as a tax avoidance. And since there were taxes on all wines coming from the continent, the Colonists switched to Madeira, produced in islands off the coast of Africa, and thus able to escape passing through England, and thus the tax. They also inclined more toward fermented apple and products.
Will we tax Everything at the set rate? Not for more than a few months. From the beginning there will be shrieks for exemptions of things called necessities. But what is a necessity? Just bread and baloney, or also asparagus, steak and shrimp? What about taxes on extremely expensive medications? As soon as the first allowance or exemption is granted, its Katy bar the door, the Legislature's dealing favors again.
Then there will be the corruption of the tax-collecting merchants. Sell a taxable soda, but ring it up as a tax exempt milk. Either giving the customer a break on the non-paid tax for his patronage, or quietly collect it and let it stick in the register. Non-remission of collected taxes is likely to be a very big problem. That will require introduction of another taxing agency to supervise, quite possibly even more intrusive than the current IRS, but using many of the old IRS agents for their expertise.
Consider carefully how states with Indian Reservations have various troubles with cigarette taxes. With a consumption tax, the second healthiest economy will be the Gray Market, the healthiest will be the Black Market.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
And the down side is?? The Federal Government will have to get smaller.

Wait, what is the problem again?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Ok L3, for the sake of argument let's say tomorrow Congress passes a National Sales Tax that replaces the Income, Payroll and Corporate taxes which were 91% of all Federal tax revenue - disregarding for the moment who pays and how much.

What would that Sales Tax rate be? Or better yet, how much revenue would they want to raise by this new Sales Tax?

The answer to those questions, given the current Dem/Rino near total control of Congress, would be that they would the set the Sales Tax rate so it would cover the entire amount of Government Spending, because there would be intense pressure to eliminate the deficit. Not a penny less.

So the national sales tax would need be about 22.5%, if all other taxes stayed the same for a total Federal take of 24% of GDP.

Since the average post war Federal take is 17.9% and the current depressed take is historically low -around 15% - the gain in Federal Revenue would be 60% higher than it is today and 34% higher than the average postwar but far better economy.

So the Federal Guv's take of the economy would be 60% higher and individual Americans on average would be paying 60% higher taxes - and here's the best part if you are a Rino/Dem - Federal Spending would permanently locked in at it's present higher rate with the opportunity to go higher if rates can be raised. The pressure to cut spending would be destroyed forever.

I understand from a pure market oriented economics point of view that a national sales tax has considerable incentive advantages over our present system. However, the likelihood that Congress would adopt an equitable Sales Tax that does not lock in permanently current Federal largesse is almost surely nil.

Moreover, the major problem of this economy is not taxes. The problem is the choking and stifling intrusion of government into every little nook and cranny of the economy. That is the problem we need to address right now , along with our government spending addiction which is also associated with our out of control bureaucracy.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The first step is to make everyone realize how much the federal government is sucking up. The second step is for the taxpayers to realize just how little they are getting for their money. The third step is booting out the so-called public servants with extreme prejudice, along with the folks who live off the government dole.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
When I was young I used to prate, bureaucracies proliferate.
Now I am older and more wise: Bureaucracies metastasize.
--from a cartoon by writer Alexis Gilliland, who had long close experience with the federal bureaucracy.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Another way to think of this is using Physics 101.

There is a difference between the static coefficient of friction and the dynamic coefficient of friction. Usually, the static is much higher than the dynamic - meaning, it takes a lot more force to start a heavy object moving than to keep it on the move.

The massive federal government will take a huge amount of force to get it to start changing. But once the motion starts, it'll be easier to make adjustments.

Of course, it could also get out of control. The build up to the French Revolution was more than 100 years. Mu-static was very large. But once the old regime fell, things changed, and fast. And not for the better, at least in the short run.

So there is always risk. As always, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. But we do know that the way things are going we don't have enough money to pay for the lunch we are ordered and are eating. So something's gotta give.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
But L3, we don't want to make the same error as the libs, do we? It's the "Romantic Fallacy" that things are lovely on their own and anything bad is the result of bad actors. It leads to the idea that government if well-intentioned can do nothing wrong, that anything bad is caused by sabotage or evil (or Bush). Which leads to the idea that breaking things is fine, as they will always fit back together better than ever.

I agree we're in a situation where things are breaking and more are going to break, but the conservative meme is that it is dangerous to let go as things CAN get worse, at least they don't automagically get better. Of course that can lead to paralysis and is not usually optimal. You ask me, whoever moves fastest has the best chance of success, but CAN move fast does not mean running into walls or over cliffs, nor, in general, does one want to move blindly. Some thought and preparation, some hard work, some discussion and consensus, surely we can come up with a system that allows for some of those?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Agreed. And I don't think I've ever said that the problem is due to a bunch of bad actors, much less that government, if well-intentioned, can do no wrong.

I think I've been pretty consistent over the years here at the BC in arguing that the problem is structural; it's a governance problem, so it won't be fixed by just electing better people or passing the right policy. It's bigger than that; it comes down to the structure of authority and incentives.

But this is actually a harder problem to fix. When we leave it to authorities to decide how much authority they should have, we've got an agency problem. It is utterly unrealistic to expect human beings - no matter how virtuous - to voluntarily cede power once it is granted to them.

As you've been hanging around at the BC for a while, you already know my view: the core problem is a governance system that has centralized control as scale has increased. It is the combination that is toxic: centralization at small scale is fine, and scale is workable with dispersed authority, but large scale centralization is a governance disaster.

We would be much better off if decision-making authority shifted down at all levels: federal to state, state to local, local to neighborhood, family, community. Everyone takes at least one step more local. The federal exception would be the enumerated powers, and if someone wanted to keep something at the federal level that is not on that list, all they have to do is pass a constitutional amendment.

The problem, as I see it, is that the trend continues the other direction - we don't even have the sign correct, much less the magnitude and angle.

As far as thought, preparation, hard work, discussion, and consensus, I think that has been happening at the grassroots level for the last 10 years, starting first on the left (MoveOn, Kos, etc.) and then on the right (Tea Party, 9/12, etc.). People are talking a lot, searching for ideas and ways to engage, supporting each other, and so on.

But talk can only get you so far. Action is required. Whether now is the right time, or any of the campaigns I've help build (Campaign for Primary Accountability, Health Care Compact, Repeal16, Texas Families First) are good ideas, well, you can decide for yourself. But they were done with lots of thought, preparation, hard work, discussion and consensus. After all, I've got no authority. I'm just a proposer, not an imposer.

Based on your past posts, I know that you understand decision theory. You therefore know that "no decision" imposes a cost. And while I totally agree that it is dangerous to do something just to do something, I think that there's point where you just gotta get in the game.

Our country was built on risk taking. And it's the only way it will be preserved into the next century, IMO.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I was invited to talk last week given by an Australian celebrity journalist, Nick Cater, where he observed that the traditional labor constituency of manual laborers working in giant factories, had gone the way of the Dodo. Those "workingmen" had evolved into small businessmen -- become self-employed plumbers, tradesmen or service providers -- but the Left still lived in the mental world of men working on an assembly line.

The reason the bureaucracies don't make the tax code easier for small business, he argued, is that (in Australia at least) the Left has long left the "working class" (or their descendants, the small businessmen) and has become in fact the party of the academic and media elite.

Back in the day to be poor was to be thin. Today to be poor is to be fat. Once upon a time the Left stood for "more". Two chickens in every pot, a half dozen cars in the garage. Today it stands for less. An electric car with fifty mile's range in the garage and arugula for dinner. Who does the Labor party hate? Actual laborers. Who does it in fact love? The anti-laborers, the elite.

It struck me that over time bureaucracies actually forget the purposes for which they were originally established. So sometimes there is virtue to simply abolishing them for abolition's sake in order to shake them out of their funk and reverie. About the only good thing you can say about human death is that it renews the world. Maybe bureaucracies need to die now and again simply on general principles.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
~~~"It struck me that over time bureaucracies actually forget the purposes for which they were originally established."~~~
No. Its that they are taken over by those as levers of power which are wholly unconnected to the purpose for which they were originally established. NASA as an outreach to Muslims. Gay pride celebrations in the US military.

It isn't unintentional, not at all.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The above should read "to a talk". I did not give the talk, only attend it.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment

A few responses for your consideration:

1. Only about 42% of federal revenue comes from the individual income tax. About 40% comes from payroll taxes - most of which is Social Security, which is one of the most regressive systems in the world. The use of timing effects and reclassification of income are used all the time by the wealth to minimize their tax bite while maintaining their consumption levels. When tax rates are high, they consume principal, which is untaxed. When tax rates are low, they sell to build a big cushion that allows them to consume later. This is part of what causes the Laffer curve. And our current system is NOT progressive for the working poor - they get taxed in some situations at a greater than 100% rate (i.e. they lose more benefits than they gain in wages).

2. A consumption tax can be progressive. The two most well-known consumption taxes - the FairTax and the Hall-Rabushka flat tax - are both progressive tax systems. The rich pay at a higher rate than the poor. And you can add on excise taxes on luxury goods if you like that sort of thing.

3. The reason to start with a repeal of the 16th Amendment is to prevent the very situation you describe: an income tax PLUS a consumption tax. Repealing 16A forcloses having both at the same time.

4. There is a "Laffer Curve" for the VAT. You can check out this paper:

Unfortunately, it's behind a paywall. But the point is that the basic principle applies, although the mechanisms are different.

I don't disagree on the way that the regulatory state has grown out of control. But these aren't independent issues; the tax system's complexity and corruptibility feeds the regulatory state. Tax breaks are the carrot; regulations are the stick. They want you to switch off of fossil fuels to cut your carbon footprint, so they give you a big tax break for installing CO2 reduction equipment.

Besides, we're working on regulations as well. In health care, we're still pushing the Health Care Compact, which is a regulatory restructuring (moves health care regulation from federal to state level). So it's not something we're ignoring.

But I think the tax code is a critical piece of reform. As some guy put it at one point, we have to be able to do two things at the same time. ;-)

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The problem with "Progressive" taxation schemes is they never are in practice what they are supposed to be in theory. Once you start making exceptions they multiply and never end. And the very people who are supposed to be shafted for the benefit of society aren't. Because that's what its all about right? Shafting the Evil Rich for the benefit of society.

But of course, shafting the Evil Rich somehow doesn't seem to apply to apply to people like Warren Buffet or George Soros.

It should be one law, one tax, for all. The opportunity for corruption in such a system tends to fall closer to zero. Many of the human-maggot hybrids that dominate the legislature wouldn't even bother to run for office if this was the case.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 Next View All