Topic: Taxation
Missed Tax Reform Opportunity for Liberals and Conservatives. Income tax could be reformed in a simple way that should be backed by both Liberals and Conservative, yet gains the support of neither.by Gene DeNardo
(libertarian)
Saturday, September 5, 2009
There is a glaring opportunity in our country for tax reform that falls right in line with both the ideology of liberals and conservatives, yet is overlooked time and time again by both. The reasons behind this omission is at first a bit baffling, but after the surface is scratched, fairly obvious.
This tax reform is both simple and straightforward: eliminate income tax on the poor and so called, working poor. Levy no tax on any individual's income that falls below $35,000. It would also be beneficial to eliminate all marital categories for income tax, but let's consider only the first suggestion for now.
With little or no persuasion, any conservative will proudly proclaim how he is adamantly opposed to taxes and how unjust the system is. Yet, what conservative has proposed such a plan? And, if one did, wouldn't every liberal fall in line, praising the benefit to the poor and the bipartisanship of the idea?
Liberals will brag about how much they care about the disadvantaged or downtrodden, yet what Liberal has brought up the idea? If one did, it would seem every conservative would jump at the opportunity to back the proposal, astonished at a liberal proposal to lower taxes.
For all we know, removing tax to that level of income may be a financial windfall to the Federal government. Who are the recipients of welfare? Who are the majority of citizens that utilize Medicaid and unemployment payments? Section 8 rent subsidies? Food stamps? Energy assistance? It is those who are earning $35,000 to zero dollars a year. What could be better than removing all income taxes for people in this situation? Taxing low income workers isn't robbing Peter to pay Paul; it is robbing Peter to pay Peter!
Every conservative would love to see government spending in these areas decrease. Shouldn't that occur if the working poor can keep their income? And, every liberal would love to see people getting the food, shelter and health care they need. It sure would seem that actually earning the whole dollar, rather than parting it out to Uncle Sam might help this become possible for those whose earning potential is challenged. And all this could occur with a smaller aggregate government.
It is hard to say if this tax reform would stimulate the economy, but it certainly wouldn't hurt. The taxes these people pay is in effect going in a circular pattern. If they could keep there income, they would be able to make more personal choices, rather than have their choices made by the Feds. While the total amount might remain the same, some sectors would prosper while others might actually diminish. The economy definitely would reflect more what people wanted, rather than what the government thought people needed.
Why would a conservative not back this plan? Because, for the most part conservatives are for taxes. They like big government. They like big defense and big law enforcement. They like big subsidy, as long as the government subsidizes what it is they want subsidized. What they don't like is to be taxed themselves!
And, liberals really do like taxes and they like the involvement of government in our lives. If you had two similar scenarios, one in which the same effect could occur with government involvement and the other without, liberals would most likely choose the one with government. They believe that people, especially those people who are only able to earn so much a year, need to be led and directed and the liberal is the perfect guy for the job!
Of course, every liberal and every conservative does not think this way. But, it is very telling that no one, from the right or the left, has suggested eliminating taxes on the lower income levels. It doesn't matter that it might make financial sense or it might be the right thing to do or that it is illogical to tax the poor, no one will step up to the plate, no matter their political persuasion.
Simply stated, on this matter and unfortunately on many others, the right and the left are severely lacking in any real conviction. They really don't believe what they claim. They are victims of what everyone is victim to: self interest. Wouldn't it be nice if they admitted as much?
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 1 thumb so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Gene DeNardo only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Gene DeNardo 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: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-09-06 07:29:37
Hi Gene,
I'd love to see your suggestion implemented. In fact, I'd go further to say anyone who receives any pay, subsidy or stipend from the federal government should pay no federal income tax. Then I'd like to see States tax pay from the Feds at 90%.
In a short period of time everyone would be on the dole to some degree, even a dollar a year, to qualify for the no federal tax clause and States would recoup most of the taxes stolen from their citizens and there would be true, unavoidable economic limits on the size of the federal government.
Obviously the next step would be to end all income taxes and let earners spend the money instead of the State having to claw it back after the feds steal it.
But none of this will happen because politics isn't about outcomes, it is about the struggle.
You know I don't have much interest in debating hypothetical or un-implementable improvements. Now, if your article had said something like "here's how we can cause this to happen..." I'd have been more interested.
There was something you said that I found very interesting though. You said, "any conservative will proudly proclaim how he is adamantly opposed to taxes and how unjust the system is." and "Every conservative would love to see government spending in these areas decrease. " and "for the most part conservatives are for taxes. They like big government. They like big defense and big law enforcement. They like big subsidy, as long as the government subsidizes what it is they want subsidized. What they don't like is to be taxed themselves!"
You have repeatedly illustrated the point of my recent articles. You let the label "conservative" confuse you when it is applied incorrectly. I don't know if you are the one doing the labeling or if the people you are criticizing have labeled themselves...and it doesn't matter. The point is that the label is unreliable information. It is irrational to weigh the label as more significant than the physical behavior you cite. The behavior defines the actor even if their label is wrong.
Miss-applied labels are a great source of conflict. You are playing the "hypocrite" card on the label instead of simply recognizing the deceit intended by the one applying the label to begin with.
As far as I'm concerned, there is only one consistent model for a conservative and that is Ron Paul. Anyone who disagrees with Dr. Paul but claims to be conservative is just playing politics by manipulating the masses who are more focused on labels than actions.
In my judgment of politicians they must consistently demonstrate the Conservative High-5 before I'd even consider referring to them as conservative. Those 5 qualifiers are 1. Rule of Law, 2. Individual Liberty 3. Limited Government, 4. Free Enterprise, 5. The liberty to defend these principles against all oppressors.
Any politician who fails on any one of these fundamental requirements cannot legitimately claim the conservative position in my view. Most self-labeled conservative politician's behavior defines them as right-wing socialists, not conservatives. The primary distinguishing feature is their god-centric view of oppression versus the left-wing socialist's elitist-centric view of oppression. The left are driven by an inability to cope with the fact that life is an economic game. The right are driven by fear of the left's disregard for their God. There is nothing conservative in any of that.
If you toss out the left-wing socialists and the right-wing socialists from our politics all that remains: the Ron Paul Republicans. No radical left-wing or right-wing views could exist without the conservative limits on government and conservative defense of individual liberty. Dictators cannot rise to power over people who demand conservative adherence to the rule of law. Without the framework provided by these conservative principles liberty is crushed, tolerance vanishes, individuals obliterated and oppression becomes the norm.
No politician whose behavior results in damage to this framework of liberty and tolerance should ever be confused with a conservative. The labels are irrelevant.
"You know I don't have much interest in debating hypothetical or un-implementable improvements."
Thanks for refering to the suggestion as an "improvement". It is extremely easy to implement, stop taxing people who can't afford to be taxed.
We should save money from federal programs, how much, no one knows, but someone could figure it out.
I have been using what I call neo-conservative and neo-liberal definitions. they are the "modern" version and I think we can agree, widely accepted.
the "conservative" you describe could just as easily describe a "liberal" from times past. I have no problem with your definition, I am just using one that is more current.
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.
