Income taxes suck -- support H.J. Res. 16!
So I just finished my federal and state income tax returns, and I am vividly reminded of just how detestible income taxes are. It's not just the money: I recognize the need to provide funds for the maintenance of government and the services it provides -- the amount being a matter of political debate. Rather, it's the amount of time, effort, and stress it takes to complete one's return. The handy little statistics in the Reduction of Paperwork Act section of the 1040 booklet indicates that I could expect to spend about 20 hours researching, preparing, and filling out the forms that I had to file. That, of course, does not include all the time required to research all the other forms one might need to file, or the double- and triple-checking one must do to avoid the appearance of fraud. It's infuriating to jump through all those hoops; enter, subtract, multiply, take the lesser, take the greater -- all in some labyrinthine stroll through the mess that special interests and short-sightedness has made of the federal income tax code. And, of course, the IRS has powers that distort or overthrow completely due process: seizure of property before conviction of tax fraud, for example. It is worth noting that those of us who make honest mistakes are much more vulnerable to abuse of this power than those using professionals to file fraudulent returns. So I can either spend a full work-week making sure there are no mistakes in my forms (and that I'm getting all the deductions I can possibly get), or I can pay somebody else to take that liability and effort.
And what a distraction it is, isn't it? Looking through pages of documentation to find that one little deduction that can save you $2 on your taxes, completing worksheet after worksheet, stringing together receipts and good-faith recollections to fit the requirements. Like rats running a maze, getting a little pleasure-zap when we complete it. It's enough to make us forget how odious it all is. The social engineering: charity, energy-efficient vehicles, having kids. That last one's the most bizarre: children use resources that all of us have to pay for, so why do we exempt those people who have the children and therefore necessitate the expense from paying their share of it? It's like the idiots out here who decided to exempt old people from paying about half of their property tax, just because they're old and have lived in their property for 10 years or more. Okay, so if I live in my house for 10 years, lose my job, and can't pay my property taxes, why should I be penalized for being only in my 40s? Why should I have to pay effectively more in taxes because of the junk they don't have to pay?
And that's the other thing, right? This loathsome temptation to blame the rich, or the poor, or the old, or the young, or the childless, or the . . . childful, for obliging us to pay more taxes -- it's class warfare, courtesy of the cowards in the legislature.
If you think I'm advocating a flat tax here, you're wrong, because the ultimate problem with income tax is that it makes the government's business how much I earn (and spend, and on what). All the government needs to know about me to protect my rights is that I exist, who I am, and what I own -- and that last, really, only the local government needs to know. This massive infrastructure for managing payroll deductions, 1099s, etc. is a drain on our economy (sorry, H&R Block), diverting funds from productive pursuits to those that merely generate wealth. What we must do is repeal the 16th Amendment and end direct taxation of individuals by the federal government once and for all.
I should note that I'm not as incensed about corporate income taxes, because publicly-traded corporations have to provide income/expense information to their shareholders anyway, and privately-held corporations still derive the benefit of being corporations. I mean, there is a reason individuals incorporate: to limit individual liability. The resulting corporation is not an individual, but an entity that exists only in the commercial (and therefore legal) sphere. It does not have the rights that the individuals incorporating do, and taxing the corporation is therefore no more odious than determining its income and profit. Corporate income taxes still could use some reform, though, if not outright repeal.
Anyway, replacing the personal income tax revenue is easy enough: the federal government conducts a census every ten years to find out who's living where, and how old everybody is, so determining how many legally voting citizens are in each state. From this, the federal government can apportion the taxes necessary to meet those expenses, and the states can raise that money through whatever means makes sense. A raw study of the 2000 census and budget shows that, to make up the $864 billion in personal income tax revenues, every citizen of all ages would have had to pay $3,070.12 each; or only those 18 and older would've had to pay $4,131.44 each. I know that's a tax increase for everyone making less than $30,000 or so (as I was in 1990). It would therefore be necessary to, you know, cut government spending. I know the IRS would cost a lot less if we were apportioning by state -- one guy with a clipboard could track receipts by state. Killing Social Security and Medicare -- and these programs MUST DIE -- wouldn't save any money, per se, but they would end the odious burden of the most regressive tax in U.S. history on individuals. Strictly limiting the federal government to that domain explicated in the U.S. Constitution, and the resultant elimination of departments unnecessary for that domain, would save enough money to make the per capita tax on citizens less than a few hundred dollars per year -- pennies a day, as an ad might say.
Interestingly enough, there's a bill in the House that would repeal the 16th amendment, introduced by Iowa Rep. Steve King introduced H.J. Res. 16 on 1 Feb 2005 (cosponsored by Reps. Culberson, Johnson, and Linder). It's currently in the Subcommittee on the Constitution, where a similar bill (which also explicitly limited federal governmental authority to those areas specified in the Constitution) from Texas Rep. Ron Paul languished and died during 2001. Hey, I have an idea: since all those subhuman, anti-American, Bushophiles are so hot and ready to change the Constitution anyway, why don't we get them to support this amendment and individual rights, rather than presuming to intrude upon personal relationships.
And what a distraction it is, isn't it? Looking through pages of documentation to find that one little deduction that can save you $2 on your taxes, completing worksheet after worksheet, stringing together receipts and good-faith recollections to fit the requirements. Like rats running a maze, getting a little pleasure-zap when we complete it. It's enough to make us forget how odious it all is. The social engineering: charity, energy-efficient vehicles, having kids. That last one's the most bizarre: children use resources that all of us have to pay for, so why do we exempt those people who have the children and therefore necessitate the expense from paying their share of it? It's like the idiots out here who decided to exempt old people from paying about half of their property tax, just because they're old and have lived in their property for 10 years or more. Okay, so if I live in my house for 10 years, lose my job, and can't pay my property taxes, why should I be penalized for being only in my 40s? Why should I have to pay effectively more in taxes because of the junk they don't have to pay?
And that's the other thing, right? This loathsome temptation to blame the rich, or the poor, or the old, or the young, or the childless, or the . . . childful, for obliging us to pay more taxes -- it's class warfare, courtesy of the cowards in the legislature.
If you think I'm advocating a flat tax here, you're wrong, because the ultimate problem with income tax is that it makes the government's business how much I earn (and spend, and on what). All the government needs to know about me to protect my rights is that I exist, who I am, and what I own -- and that last, really, only the local government needs to know. This massive infrastructure for managing payroll deductions, 1099s, etc. is a drain on our economy (sorry, H&R Block), diverting funds from productive pursuits to those that merely generate wealth. What we must do is repeal the 16th Amendment and end direct taxation of individuals by the federal government once and for all.
I should note that I'm not as incensed about corporate income taxes, because publicly-traded corporations have to provide income/expense information to their shareholders anyway, and privately-held corporations still derive the benefit of being corporations. I mean, there is a reason individuals incorporate: to limit individual liability. The resulting corporation is not an individual, but an entity that exists only in the commercial (and therefore legal) sphere. It does not have the rights that the individuals incorporating do, and taxing the corporation is therefore no more odious than determining its income and profit. Corporate income taxes still could use some reform, though, if not outright repeal.
Anyway, replacing the personal income tax revenue is easy enough: the federal government conducts a census every ten years to find out who's living where, and how old everybody is, so determining how many legally voting citizens are in each state. From this, the federal government can apportion the taxes necessary to meet those expenses, and the states can raise that money through whatever means makes sense. A raw study of the 2000 census and budget shows that, to make up the $864 billion in personal income tax revenues, every citizen of all ages would have had to pay $3,070.12 each; or only those 18 and older would've had to pay $4,131.44 each. I know that's a tax increase for everyone making less than $30,000 or so (as I was in 1990). It would therefore be necessary to, you know, cut government spending. I know the IRS would cost a lot less if we were apportioning by state -- one guy with a clipboard could track receipts by state. Killing Social Security and Medicare -- and these programs MUST DIE -- wouldn't save any money, per se, but they would end the odious burden of the most regressive tax in U.S. history on individuals. Strictly limiting the federal government to that domain explicated in the U.S. Constitution, and the resultant elimination of departments unnecessary for that domain, would save enough money to make the per capita tax on citizens less than a few hundred dollars per year -- pennies a day, as an ad might say.
Interestingly enough, there's a bill in the House that would repeal the 16th amendment, introduced by Iowa Rep. Steve King introduced H.J. Res. 16 on 1 Feb 2005 (cosponsored by Reps. Culberson, Johnson, and Linder). It's currently in the Subcommittee on the Constitution, where a similar bill (which also explicitly limited federal governmental authority to those areas specified in the Constitution) from Texas Rep. Ron Paul languished and died during 2001. Hey, I have an idea: since all those subhuman, anti-American, Bushophiles are so hot and ready to change the Constitution anyway, why don't we get them to support this amendment and individual rights, rather than presuming to intrude upon personal relationships.
posted by heavynettle at 10:23
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home