Bureaucrocide - The Federal Income Tax Harms Civil Liberties

I think we have witnessed a sufficient demonstration of the potential for and actual abuse of power.

There are so many good reasons for eliminating the federal income tax (state's can decide individually) that the question really is when and how as opposed to if we should commit bureaucrocide*.

I advocate dramatic cuts to reduce the overall size and breadth of the federal government posthaste. We want to spend less on government so someone who asks what the substitute for the revenue will be (in lieu of income taxes) perhaps conceives of the task but, misses the point.

Ten Ways the Income Tax Harms Civil Liberties

The Internal Revenue Service scandal over the targeting of conservative groups has highlighted the agency’s power to obstruct our political freedoms. Filing taxes every April also drives home how the government reduces our freedom.
Chief Justice John Marshall famously observed in 1819 that “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.” That’s true of any tax, but the massive federal income tax harms civil liberties much more than is necessary to raise the needed funds.

“Congress should pursue major tax reforms that not only unshackle the economy but also expand our civil liberties.”

Some members of Congress have been talking about tax reform. But their efforts so far have been accounting-driven exercises that simply tweak the monstrous code. Instead, Congress should pursue major tax reforms that not only unshackle the economy but also expand our civil liberties.

All good reasons including the very last one, forced self-incrimination. What irony that Ms. Lerner should claim that very right herself.

* I am officially claiming this word as my invention, thank you very much.

with a smaller and less funded government, things like the EPA, Tobacco and Firearms, and other such regulation services would suffer and diminish...not to mention institutions like NASA (even moreso) and the like.

How do you shrink the government without shrinking the positive functions of the government?

If you got rid of the federal income tax and implemented a fair tax at 25%, then the federal government would have a budget of 4+ trillion dollars at a 16 Trillion dollar GDP.

The income tax is called a progressive tax system for a reason. It enable the government to regulate and delve into our personal finances when ever they feel they have a reason.

A 4 trillion dollar budget is a trillion dollars more than the budget Obama just proposed. Plenty of money for government social programs and to build our defenses to be the best in the world.

But it comes at the expense of the government giving up a lot of control.

Also, we would keep 100% of our paychecks which would mean more money we would have to spend. How could you not be for it?

SaturnFX
with a smaller and less funded ...Tobacco and Firearms, and other such  

ATF is anything but small.

Timing
If you got rid of the federal income tax and implemented a fair tax at 25%, then the federal government would have a budget of 4+ trillion dollars at a 16 Trillion dollar GDP.

Fair tax would have to be around 34% to be revenue neutral
Source

I am not opposed to the fair tax. it seems it has a lot of potential.

SaturnFX
EPA, Tobacco and Firearms, and other such regulation services

I know that was just a misread on my part but it sent shivers down my spine!

I have very little sympathy for the ATF or the EPA and, I think we can say with certainty, they have no sympathy for us.

My main point is that we know we must disassemble this monstrosity so the debate is over (I like that, it's so much easier than debating).

greencmp

SaturnFX
EPA, Tobacco and Firearms, and other such regulation services

I know that was just a misread on my part but it sent shivers down my spine!

I have very little sympathy for the ATF or the EPA and, I think we can say with certainty, they have no sympathy for us.

My main point is that we know we must disassemble this monstrosity so the debate is over (I like that, it's so much easier than debating).

Well, ATF is one thing, (actually meant to say FEMA), but whats the issue with the EPA?
You buy into the whole corporate propaganda that we shouldn't care about our environment?

SaturnFX

greencmp

SaturnFX
EPA, Tobacco and Firearms, and other such regulation services

I know that was just a misread on my part but it sent shivers down my spine!

I have very little sympathy for the ATF or the EPA and, I think we can say with certainty, they have no sympathy for us.

My main point is that we know we must disassemble this monstrosity so the debate is over (I like that, it's so much easier than debating).

Well, ATF is one thing, (actually meant to say FEMA), but whats the issue with the EPA?
You buy into the whole corporate propaganda that we shouldn't care about our environment?

Well, that is the narrative that the radical environmentalist movement would have you believe. The truth is that you need not discard all cares for the earth and it's inhabitants in order to distrust a federal government bureaucracy regardless of the name it bears.

SaturnFX
with a smaller and less funded government, things like the EPA, Tobacco and Firearms, and other such regulation services would suffer and diminish...not to mention institutions like NASA (even moreso) and the like.

How do you shrink the government without shrinking the positive functions of the government?

I think that is a valid question but most functions would return to the States and those such as NASA, would be picked up by the private sector with maybe grants from States that are vying for theirs to be the center of the new space endeavors.

I agree that closing the spigot instantly wouldn't be the right path, there is too much bureaucracy for effective and just Government to be administered in its current state. That is partial due to the notion that many of these agencies understand they have at least a $1 trillion dollar trough (that is the 2011 income tax receipts) to pull from.

But given your current examples, let us theorize how it could work. First, the EPA. Noble in intentions as even the staunchest of deniers of Global Warming don't want to see unnecessary waste and abuse of our natural resources; which means states would institute their own versions that pertain to their own lands and airways.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Government Revenue

That is a link to the site that shows what the current amount of Government Revenue is with links to the data they compiled it from.

The thing a lot of people miss with the fair tax is that depending upon your tax bracket 20 to 30% of your paycheck is taken out that you don't even see. Also businesses would have more money to spend because it would eliminate the payroll tax and a whole host of other taxes.

Keeping the tax at 25% products might see a slight increase in costs. So how the site you linked too says a 20k car would cost 26k due to the sales tax the truth being that extra 6k is now being paid by you out of your pocket instead of being withheld by the government.

The other thing about is that the IRS would still be around, I know to a lot of peoples dismay, but their roll would be reduced to making sure businesses are paying the 25% or whatever the tax rate is.

The local taxes and state taxes would need some tweaking though.

ownbestenemy
which means states would institute their own versions that pertain to their own lands and airways.

Problem is, states are run by governors whom seem to often be loyal to other states and corporations
Here in Florida, we had a Bush as governor for awhile, whom tried to open up all our beachfront to outside oil companies (benefitting his family and friends investments while doing little more than destroying our beaches here). States are temporarily run by ruthless sellouts without the same oversight as a federal organization...much greater chance of corruption. That isn't some strange conspiracy consideration..thats simply an observable truth with numerous examples.

reply to post by SaturnFX


But the oversight is there and yet it is happening, so I am unsure how trying a different path would be worse? Federal oversight is there and it is bought...but you feel better that the oversight is there regardless if the outcome is still a sellout?

I don't pretend that our current political class is beyond messed up; from Right to Left, Democrat to Republican; they are all for the most part, a disgusting bunch. I guess we can continue down the same path so long as we have "policy" and "Federal oversight" in place to make us feel good about the destructive paths we are set upon.

The best and most effective chance to affect change is at the local level with policies that are more aligned with the region in which they will eventually affect. Imposition via a "one-size-fits-all" top-down administration of issues that are, for all purposes, local -- hasn't worked. Governors still rape the economy -- or the environment -- or the People -- or businesses....

Again, wouldn't be an overnight change, unless at the end of a gun; as power never concedes power willfully. Embracing the notion that all political power is held with the People and that which the Government enjoys is borrowed would help though. We have strayed from that since 1776 in my opinion.

The People are just not capable it seems to have a Just Government. I am being cynical of course.

SaturnFX

ownbestenemy
which means states would institute their own versions that pertain to their own lands and airways.

Problem is, states are run by governors whom seem to often be loyal to other states and corporations
Here in Florida, we had a Bush as governor for awhile, whom tried to open up all our beachfront to outside oil companies (benefitting his family and friends investments while doing little more than destroying our beaches here). States are temporarily run by ruthless sellouts without the same oversight as a federal organization...much greater chance of corruption. That isn't some strange conspiracy consideration..thats simply an observable truth with numerous examples.

Government cannot avoid becoming corrupt, the larger and more powerful the government, the greater the scale of corruption and the more damage that can be wrought.

States, while identically susceptible to corruption, have less power to corrupt than the federal government (California may challenge that statement in some ways).