Topic: 1st Amendment
The End Of The Personal Income Tax Having produced more money by fiat in several hours than we collect from income tax in a year, is it necessary to continue a system of personal income tax?by Ben Samuel
(centrist liberal libertarian)
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Has it somehow slipped by all daily observers? In several hours last year, the federal reserve with its accomplice the department of the treasury, created by fiat more money than could be raised by personal income tax in the U.S. in one year. As a government we hold more equity in some of the world's largest banks than their largest individual shareholders, we can dictate terms, and we certainly ought to put our new income source to good purpose.
It certainly begs the question, do we even need a personal income tax any longer? Better yet, what purpose does it serve, for by meddling with people's incomes we thwart the ability of our government's new enterprises to survive and thrive (autos as well).
Rather than income tax, citizens should be rewarded with some form of equity for any contribution they make to the government's ability for further acquisitions, unless, of course we simply wish to leave the politicians as the premier stakeholders. We may even improve our social security in this manner.
And given we have gone in this direction already, and in true bipartisan spirit, ought we not now simply extend medicare to all, as a benefit of participation in the new equity order.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 9 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Ben Samuel only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Ben Samuel is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-02-03 04:56:06
You are overlooking the most important reason for having the Income Tax, which is to pay the interest on the national debt. See my article published today in response to Chris Espinal's article about economic preferences for more details.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-02-03 06:28:20
From my perspective, the income tax is only necessary as a means of control. Whatever purpose it may have served in the past is irrelevant...even if the need for those original purposes has completely disappeared.
It is part of the general practice of homogenization and control.
Politicians promise tax cuts and tax credits,and they most of the time deliver. But those tax cuts and tax credits are from the money they already steal from us. So that is like a crook telling us: "Don't worry, I am going to give you back some (but not all) of the money that I am stealing from you" or "Don't worry, I am going to steal less than last year"
The Chairman of the New York Federal Reserve; Beardsley Ruml wrote an article for American Affairs titled "Taxes for Revenue Are Obsolete."
"The necessity for a government to tax in order to maintain both its independence and its solvency is true for state and local governments, but it is not true for a national government. Two changes.... have substantially altered the position of the national state with respect to the financing of its current requirements.
The first of these changes is the gaining of vast new experience in the management of central banks. The second change is the elimination, for domestic purposes, of the convertibility of the currency into gold...
The United States is a national state which has a central banking system, the Federal Reserve System, and whose currency, for domestic purposes, is not convertible into any commodity. It follows that our Federal Government has final freedom from the money market in meeting its financial requirements. Accordingly, the inevitable social and economic consequences of any and all taxes have now become the prime consideration in the imposition of taxes. In general, it may be said that since all taxes have consequences of a social and economic character, the government should look to these consequences in formulating its tax policy. All federal taxes must meet the test of public policy and practical effect. The public purpose which is served should never be obscured in a tax program under the mask of raising revenue.
What Taxes Are Really For?
Federal taxes can be made to serve four principal purposes of a social and economic character. These purposes are:
1. As an instrument of fiscal policy to help stabilize the purchasing power of the dollar;
2. To express public policy in the distribution of wealth and of income, as in the case of the progressive income and estate taxes;
3. To express public policy in subsidizing or in penalizing various industries and economic groups;
4. To isolate and assess directly the costs of certain national benefits, such as highways and social security.
Ordinarily, I might agree with you. However, in the instant circumstance, the dollar, despite its enormous growth in supply, actually vastly improved as a store of value; it rallied against other currencies, we are able to purchase more commodities, goods, food, oil, homes and equities.
Those of us fortunate to retain a flow of dollars to ourselves, find ourselves in improved circumstances. Now, we have gifted the banks (and certain other industries) cash to improve their balance sheets and to enable them to inspire confidence to be both a lender and a borrower. At this point they have chosen simply to hoard what we have lent. The government will soon have no choice but to be an alternative lender, or to exercise its authority (that acquired by its gifts) to restore the flow of commerce. That being said, the taxpayer should now become an equity holder of this new government enterprise and receive the rewards that are appropriately due for such risk assumption, not simply be a serf who must pay a bill by April 15 of each year.
Hi Ben, that is interesting that you bring that up as it highlights a big difference between European Social Democracy and American Corporate Socialism. Euros have actually nationalized some banks and do hold a public stake in their operation. On the other hand, we just give our corporations money and in return they promise to continue doing business as they always have! If we refuse, they threaten to dissolve and put everyone out of work.
These and other basic differences have led me to believe we really need to address the different forms of socialism in entirely different ways. Acting as if they are all identical is much like declaring the current system we have is a true free market economy.
In many ways I agree with you. But I also think we are caught up in labeling things capitalism, socialism, communism, democracy, fascism. I hope that the message I am trying to impart is that it is just good business and we as citizens should receive the rewards as well as suffer the consequences of our ventures, collectively and/or individually.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
