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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 servicesvii – especially if they are unnecessary or unwiseviii 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.
- 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.)
- 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I know you agree, but you can leave comments anyway.