Under a democratic state, your money can be likened to a piece of bread thrown into a pond where fish from both the left and right nibble away. Your money and rights are fought over and consumed in ways you did not consent to. In modern governmental systems, the tax codes purposely become so complicated that only allies of the powerful, national parties can afford top lawyers to find loopholes. The Goliath companies receive beneficial handouts and set the rules for the market, while the Davids are burdened with taxes and regulations Goliath can handle but they cannot. Meanwhile, the wealthiest always seem to wiggle out of paying taxes; for example, Warren Buffett paid .002% in taxes in 2015.
Current taxation is a form of robbery where specific privileged individuals (politicians and bureaucrats) have the sole right to “legally” steal. Typically, if my money were taken and used against my will, it would be called theft, just as we would declare it if a heroin addict stole another man’s money and used it for drugs. We move into the realm of robbery when those stolen goods are confiscated under the threat of violence or harm. Under direct taxation, if you refuse to go along with the confiscation of your money—refuse to pay your taxes—you will be jailed, where you could face actual physical harm.
I was watching a recent video clip of a news host who asked:
“How did we go from fighting a revolution over a 2% tax on a breakfast beverage to what we pay today? We Are taxed on money when we receive it, when we spend it, when we keep it, when we invest it, and even when we die with it. It gets worse. We commute to work to make that money in a car that is taxed again to register on roads that were already taxed to build fueled by gas that is taxed even further. And many times through tolls that tax you again. And that to maintain bridges and highways and tunnels that already have billions of dollars of taxpayer allocated to them, and they’re still falling apart. And then when you get to your office that is taxed to exist, in a corporation that also is taxed to do business, almost certainly requires permits and other things, which are another tax. You are paid a paycheck that the corporation must match with another payroll tax on top of what they have to pay you. Then you go to a home, of which you are taxed to own every single year that we bought with money that the government already taxed also.”
In our “land of the free” but home of the slave, we have a more significant portion of our earnings confiscated by our masters in DC than serfs during the Middle Ages or slaves picking cotton. And if it becomes too unpopular to raise taxes further, the government will print trillions of dollars. Roman Emperors used to shave off the edges of silver coins as a method of hidden taxation. Politicians’ version of this is to print money and cause inflation. Since the Federal Reserve was formed in 1913, a dollar then is worth five cents today—a “hidden” tax of 95%. It takes more work hours to do the same activities it did just a couple decades ago.
When they have finished confiscating and devaluing your money but still need a fix, politicians will also drive up the debt. Politicians steal from unborn citizens (without their vote or consent) without ever needing to pay it back. The debt just carries on to the next election cycle of politicians. As our national debt indicates, politicians care more about power than about future generations. They are far less caring about those who cannot currently help them gain or maintain power via votes. Few politicians are even held accountable for lying about the costs of projects because they can easily spread the blame around. Further, their time in office might be over by the time the project fails or runs over cost. All of these realities drive the government towards never-ending expansion.
Many citizens and small business owners I talk with are perplexed by the economic measures taken by our government. They say the policies can only lead to negative long-term consequences. Why would they do this, they ask? It doesn’t make sense; it will hurt the economy. What they miss is, unlike a hereditary king, the politician is in for as many benefits as he can gain as fast as he can. He could face the loss of his position in two years. In part, he owes his job to groups investing in his campaign, and he must pay them back. I am not saying he does not have friends and “experts” to champion around claiming the new economic policy is good for the voters, but either way, he is there to exploit his chances now. He might rather the economy not decay, but his kids and grandkids will get into elite private schools either way. He will be secure in his possessions, retirement, and so on. His children will not inherit his position, so he only cares about their economic stability and influential friends. He can achieve this by utilizing government power now. In other words, he cares for his kids more than yours.
If we are required to have a direct tax, I always liked the idea of a flat tax where everyone pays the same percentage. So if you make ten dollars a year, you pay $1 in taxes. If you make $100, you pay $10. Of course, this method is only partially fair because the services provided for the taxes are equal to the one who pays $1 and the one who pays $10. So the one who pays the larger amount is getting less bang for his buck. But still, it is better than politicians being able to divide us into wealthy vs. poor.
Another possibility is a uniform tax advance. So let’s say we have three tax brackets, “rich,” “middle class,” and “poor,” based on how each household compares to the national average. These brackets pay 1%, 2%, and 3% in taxes. If a politician wishes to raise taxes to fund a new program, the raise must affect all equally. So now the new tax rates are 1.2%, 2.2%, and 3.2%. In this way, the people are not set against one another for the advantage of politicians. Instead, it can be a unified whole agreeing to or rejecting the new programs.
Agriculturalist Joel Salatin suggested the use of taxes be chosen by the purchaser rather than the receiver. If I go to the grocery store, I expect to be able to purchase what I want for the cost I agree to. Why aren’t our taxes handled the same way? Salatin advocates allowing the taxpayer to choose the government program or programs they wish to support. It seems a very democratic method of taxation! Just as they elect politicians, the people choose what service they want the government to provide. This would also initiate competition among governmental agencies—which is why it will never happen. Instead of their current absolutist monopoly, each agency would compete with other federal agencies for funding. They would then become more effective and provide better services, or become defunded.
If we keep our progressive tax codes, we could improve their fairness if those who pay more taxes had more say in its use. So someone who pays 10% in taxes should have half the say of someone who pays 20%. For example, come election day, the one who pays 20% should have two votes, the one who pays 10% a single vote. It seems wholly unequal and discriminatory to allow someone who pays less to have the same say in spending someone else’s money. I agree with Saint Augustine, who wrote, “If, however, in time the people become corrupted and sell their votes, entrusting the government to scoundrels and criminals, they forfeit their power to elect public officials and the right devolves upon a few good men.” To give the same rights as the person who is genuinely interested in what is best for everyone to someone who uses his vote to steal from his fellow citizens is the height of relativism and a corrupt political system.
Let’s remove all financial conflicts of interest. For example, welfare recipients, subsidized corporations, and state and federal employees should not be allowed to decide what to do with others’ money. You can either receive welfare, keep a government job, and relinquish the right to vote or stop living off other people’s paychecks. I think almost everyone can agree many politicians owe their positions to handouts through subsidies, regulations on competition, welfare, etc. We can remove them by removing the votes of the beneficiaries.
I always thought the same way about legislation. Politicians should not be allowed to pass legislation helping them personally. Any legislation they pass harming any one group of citizens must also apply to them. This would abolish government schools because it would force politicians to send their kids to them. If we imposed on them what they do on us, we would quickly restore voters’ liberties. Further, the policies hurting us would be drastically reduced since the politicians introducing them would also suffer the adverse effects.
