Income Taxes

Do you believe it is OK for the government to use the tax code to punish American tax payers? Consider some examples.

President Franklin Roosevelt raised the tax rate to 79% for incomes over $5 Million for the tax year 1936. The problem is that only one person made that amount of money: John D. Rockefeller. Poor dear old John D. Rockefeller just made too much money for the government not to pay attention.

The tax rate rose to 91% in 1951 and the income limit dropped to $400,000. So the aim is to raise the tax rate and lower the income limit that it applies to. So Duh, lowering the income limit at the same tax rate is actually RAISING TAXES.

I believe that Ronald Reagan stated that he only made one movie per year at $1,000,000 per movie because he had to give 91% ($910,000) of his earnings to the government, leaving him with just $90,000. This was our loss for him not being in more movies. This is most probably the reason that he believed in lower taxes. High taxes cuts the incentive to work.

In 2001 when Bill Clinton left office the top rate was 39.1% for incomes over $297,000. The 2001 dollars of $297,000 in 2008 dollars is about $350,000 adjusted for inflation. So returning to those rates of 39.1% on those making above $250,000 is actually raising taxes because to be equivalent to the 90's, the upper limit would have to start at $350,000.

The question is "Is it OK for the Government to use tax law to punish one American?"

Is it OK to use tax law to punish two American? How about 10 American? 100 Americans? 1000 Americans? How about the top 20% of tax paying Americans who pay 78% of all taxes?

Per CBO analysis:

• Top 1% Taxpayers pay 32% of all income taxes
• Top 5% Taxpayers pay 51.4% of all income taxes
• Top 10% Taxpayers pay 63.5% of all income taxes
• Top 20% Taxpayers pay 78% of all income taxes (those households making more than $100,000)

I hope the answer to all of the above is the same - It is NOT OK to use tax law to punish any American! To be punished for hard work, physically or mentally, is not in the American spirit as inspired by the Founding Fathers.

---

Slavery is bad, wrong, and immoral!

John Locke, an English philosopher (1632-1704), established the Natural Law Theory which stated "Devine Law, Moral Law, then Positive Law made by Legislatures". John Locke is one of the important writers in political though. John Locke's writing "Essay on Toleration" is considered the founding document for Liberalism. John Locke's other writings illustrate the conservative philosophy. So the birth of both liberalism and conservatism was born, depending on the individual groups doing the interpretation.

John Locke was a major influence in England, France, Germany, Europe in general, and on the American colonists in his writing of "The Second Treatise of Civil Government". His influence was not only on the men who eventually worked on the creation of the U.S. Constitution but on the men of many European Nations who wrote their Nations' Constitutions. These constitutions formed socialist nations as well as capitalist nations.

Many of the ideals in his writings are obvious to the reader of the Constitution.

In his writings "Of Slavery", he stated that "This is the perfect condition of slavery, which is nothing else, but the state of war continued, between a lawful conqueror and a captive:...". Locke continues in his writing "Of Property", "Every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. This labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his.". In general terms, Locke states that everyman has a property in himself and that man not only has a right of property in himself but also in the work that he produces and the gifts (money) that he recovers for that work. Locke's labour was what gave man title to his possessions: "Thus labour, in the beginning, gave a right to property..."

Locke further stated "Government is here for us, we are not here for government".

The colonists guarded property rights and rights of inheritance. The "Framers" of the Constitution did not provide for the taxation of a person's property that his labor produced. The Sixteenth Amendment (Income Taxes) to our Constitution took away the rights of property that labor produced.

The Sixteenth Amendment puts us in Tax Slavery: from Locke "a lawful conqueror and a captive".

As stated in the Constitution, Congress has had the ability to levy a consumption tax, a tax on the sales of products and services. It was only after ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment that Congress had the right to levy taxes on individuals and business based on their income (labor) produced in addition to taxing based on the sale of the products they produced. This was a major change in the tax system of the United States, away from Locke's view and the "Framers" view that labor gave a right to property.

How many days (months) do you work each year for your Tax King (Congress & IRS)? (This day is known as Tax Day and the rest of the year you get to work for yourself. Isn't it odd that Tax Day for most people is usually in May, the month after your Income Tax is due.)

---

Visualize moving back in time before the Sixteenth Amendment before 1913. Congress had little intrusion into the lives of American. All of your income and savings could be passed to your children. Your property could be passed to your children. Taxes were based on product movement: Sales Tax.

The 16th Amendment gave Congress the ability to separate individuals into classes with the ability to take from some and give to others. Redistribution! Instead of believing in the innovation and work ethics of the American worker to produce goods and services, Congress now has a direct means to attack those individuals.

The original intent on taxing was to have a uniform system. Income taxes are a means to bypass this uniformity. Instead of taxing what Americans consume, Congress taxes Americans' work.

There are two types of taxes:

• Tax that benefits flow of goods and services, or
• Tax that benefits government or one class of people.

The Constitution specified that "all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" to benefit the general welfare of all citizens. The Sixteenth Amendment goes beyond this requirement to benefit "one class of people".

Another way of describing taxes is:

• Scheme of duties (taxes) to control markets and economy, or
• Scheme of duties (taxes) to redistribute the wealth.

A consumption tax can accomplish the first item, but only an Income Tax can accomplish the second. So if someone said they are not interested in redistribution of wealth, then ask "Why do we then need an Income Tax system?".

---

Every American deserves elimination of 100% of all income taxes. In this respect, we want to revert from an Income Tax System back to a Consumption Tax System, via the tax on the sales of products and services. Congress could move to a Value Added Tax (VAT) or a Retail Sales Tax. Sorry to say, but getting Congress to do this on their own is a fruitless effort.

We proposed the FAIRTAX which is a consumption tax in the final sale of the product or service. It is like a sales tax added at the end, a tax included on the sale price like local and state taxes are added. A Value Added Tax (VAT) is a embedded tax collected by the government as each stage of the product is passed from one business to another. See our Issue Item discussion the difference between the FairTax, Income Tax, and VAT.

So it is up to "We the People" to effect this change. We have two Alternatives:

• Elect new members of Congress who would change the system, or
• Amend the Constitution to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment (see Amendments).

It is our goals to accomplish both. We need new leadership in Congress to implement the new consumption tax once the Sixteenth Amendment is removed.