You Pay For What You Get

We resent having to pay for what we don't want and what, often, we don't get. But those in power can decide for us how our money is to be used. The majorityⁱ can impose their will on the minority. That's what happens in a democracy.ⁱⁱ However we all know that, “Rules were made to be broken” – or, at least – circumvented. In this case the rule book is the Constitution, and those getting around it are the three branches of government. The matter in which I'm interested at the moment is the use of taxing power to fund whatever strikes the government's fancy, and a significant method of evading any bars to their action is the creative interpretation of what the Constitution says.

But that's the way it is. So until we change the rules – and that includes convincing the Executive and Legislative branches that we won't reelect them if they continue to ignore the Constitution, and make it clear to the Judiciary that they will be impeached if they continue to make up the law as they like and as they go along – and until we change them so that they can't be misunderstood, misrepresented, and misinterpreted, that's the way it will remain. If it ain't broken, don't break it. But they do. And in order to ensure the outcome we desire, it may be necessary to pass laws that will be sufficiently clear that we will all know when they are misinterpreted.

And that's what I'll try to do next week with a specific tax program. Next week. This week I want to make a few final points in a discussion that would take far too long were I to attempt a complete exposition of all the issues. So I'll only deal with a few, and I'll minimize the discussion of these, leaving it to the reader to fill in the many blanks I leave. The points I make will not be listed in any logical order because I can't voluntarily affect my stream of consciousness, but they're all important from my perspective. At some time in the future I'll return to them and to some of the subjects I'm omitting.ⁱⁱⁱ

1. When Jean Valjean stole a loaf of bread he was doing wrong. The punishment was certainly too severe, but that's not the point I want to make. The price of the loaf was the same for all – rich or poor. That's the way it is today. There is no sliding scale for lottery tickets depending on your income, nor is there one for a new car, string beans, or a cloud account. But income taxes are based on such a scale, with some paying nothing and others paying percentages of their income based on its level. The IRS (in obeying Congress's wishes) follows the philosophy of Robin Hood,^iv and takes more from the rich to support the poor.
2. The universal credit/debit card (UCDC) discussed a few weeks ago,^v will be a big help in implementing the tax service I propose. In fact, its use is presumed in the program I shall be offering.
3. I shall be discussing a change in the system of entitlements – governmental charity – to a system based on user fees and private charities, with the government only acting as the philanthropist of last resort. Similar considerations could be used to put in order other governmental services.
4. Lowering taxes for everyone and cutting out some of what are now (inappropriately) considered governmental services, will make more money available to pay for enlargement of other (more necessary)^vi services as well, and also shift the costs to those using the services^vii – especially if they are unnecessary or unwise^viii services or products. The elimination of unneeded services will surely put some government officials out of work, and they'll have to look for honest employment.
5. There is extensive discussion of a “flat” tax, meaning the same percentage for everyone, irrespective of income. Thought should be given to a flat tax which amounts to the same amount for everyone. It is recognized that there will be many who cannot afford to pay for what they get – after all, that's why they require aid – but that can be monitored with the UCDC which can be used to encourage the payment of taxes before money is spent on less necessary items. (Who will decide what is necessary is, itself, an important question.)
6. Removal of unneeded expenses from the government, and the taxes now used to pay for them, will free up funds to deal with projects that have been on hold for long periods.^ix Many of these will be projects that will create jobs, especially for those who are unemployed and receiving governmental benefits, although those who are following the rules and working should also benefit from those new programs.^x Whoever works, however, will be a taxpayer.
    

Not much, but a start, as I mentioned more than once. I'll be a little more specific next week. Then I'll leave the subject for a while so I can deal with other topics that are on my mind. This whole series has been a little taxing. And you're really paying for it.

Next episode: “Choice” – A “right” currently limited to the pregnant, but, at least for the moment, not to others who are burdened.

i       Through their elected representatives.

ii      At least those in power. They don't really have to represent those who elected them. Once in office they can serve their own interests, and often do.

iii     And I'm omitting a lot. What follows are only a few of the questions that have crossed my mind in terms of the reining in of government costs and the distribution of the savings more appropriately.

iv      Actually, in the early legends he was a political dissident and a thief. Later, in the nineteenth century, he took on the aspect of socialist – “redistributing” the money of the rich to the poor.

v        See “The Route Of All Evil,” April 21, 2013, in this column.

vi     Such as more construction of infrastructure and better implementation of inspection of food, drugs and other consumer products. And I'm certain the reader can come up with other useful tasks.

vii    For example, the cost of roads could be provided by tolls and increased gas taxes, rather than taxes on all citizens. That way drivers would pay for the roads they use and others would pay, through increased prices, for the products transported on those roads.

viii   Health care costs would be lessened, and health improved, by removing subsidies and raising the taxes on alcohol and tobacco to include such medical costs as they necessitate. The higher tax would discourage their use, and, in addition, removal of subsidies would discourage the use of corn to make ethanol when it could be better used as food.

ix      Ideally, the cost of all new programs will be listed along with the names of those officials who supported them and who opposed them. That will be important information for voters at the time of the next election.

x       As should those former civil servants formerly doing unnecessary work at the taxpayers' expense.