Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould the US adopt the Flat Tax Amendment?
Results so far:
| Yes | 60% | 153 votes | Total: 253 votes | |
| No | 40% | 100 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to Favorites"With liberty and justice for all," is a phrase with which nearly all American students close their Pledges of Allegiance every morning of school attendance. Indeed, our students have been beginning each of their school days with the phrase for decades. One could argue it's part of an indoctrination process, given that the average K-8 student will repeat the phrase approximately 1,600 times across the first nine years of school.
Indoctrination aside, are we hoodwinking and bamboozling our school children, every morning just prior to lunch count? We certainly are, if we apply our current tax code to the concept of "liberty and justice for all." A system of taxation that requires modest to moderate wage earners to pay larger percentages of their incomes, than the very wealthy stands in stark contrast to the idea that ours is a society guaranteeing "liberty and justice for all." Even the very well heeled, if they operate with a modicum of objectivity, must agree this nation's present tax code victimizes the most monetarily vulnerable. At the 2004 Democratic National Convention, former president Bill Clinton freely admitted, that since his income now greatly exceeds $200,000, he is exempt from paying federal income tax.
Liberty is a term that is defined as "freedom from arbitrary or despotic government." Anyone willing to argue that our tax code isn't arbitrary, when it requires people with larger incomes to pay smaller percentages of their annual earnings, than the poorer must pay? In some cases, the rich don't pay a penny in federal income taxes.
Justice is a word that is synonymous with equitable. There is nothing equitable about our current tax code. It is unequal in every sense of the word. As with liberty, the story remains unchanged where justice, or equitability, is concerned.
The truth is we're not being honest with our children and we're not being honest with our citizenry. I suppose Washington lawmakers are fooling the naive and disinterested, but anyone who stays marginally abreast of American events knows the truth.
Are we truly a democracy? In a true democracy each citizen is allowed to vote on every legislative issue that comes before its citizenry. Ancient Athens had a democratic government. New England town meetings practice democratic principles. Domestic social scientists like to refer to the United States as an in-direct democracy. How can a society like ours, represent democracy of any kind, when earners of modest to moderate incomes unwillingly sacrifice grossly inordinate percentages of their salaries in federal taxes, than the rich do?
A Flat Tax Amendment is the only way to bring this charade to a close. Every American, regardless of his or her income, should pay 10% annually in federal taxes. Whether one makes $30,000 or $3 million every year, a flat 10% tax is consistent and fair across the board.
Remember, taxation is the reason why this nation secured its independence. Look how far we haven't come in 232 years. The current federal income tax amendment is less than 100 years old. What would the founding fathers, or our veterans of the Revolutionary War, think about today's method of federal taxation? They fought so vainly under the worse of military conditions. What a tremendous disservice has been done to their causes and continues to be done to the majority Americans taxpayers today.
We should be ashamed of ourselves!
Learn more about this author, Tim Gray.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
One of the reasons our nation began was a effort by its colonial leadership to either reform or abolish the various taxes that England's parliament and king had imposed upon us. "No taxation without representation," was a rallying cry of colonists who felt that no government could reach into their purse without at least a chance to voice their opinion on the subject.
Now, two centuries later we are buried under a slew of taxes that our government claims are necessary to support the operations of government. To that I say we are not being represented. Any tax on income is counter to democratic principles and economic good sense. Why punish people who work and actively contribute to the health of our economy? The United States income tax was only designed to be a temporary measure. Today it represents a government that has grown to become the financial monster consuming billions and trillions of dollars with little to show for the effort.
The war in Iraq is a prime example. Republicans and Democrats air out misgivings about the war but do not hesitate to fund it. Why should the cost bother them? Most have hefty tax sheltered incomes that do not suffer as a result.
Welfare benefits from a Congress that is quick to aid the less fortunate on the backs of those of us who make enough to pay in but not enough to shelter funds offshore or use loopholes that confound a system claiming to be fair.
The problem is a House of Representatives that while it has the 'power of the purse' is not a group that displays any real fiscal responsibility or maturity. The recent votes on Earmarks which failed because representatives like keeping their jobs not doing their jobs illustrate government leadership out of touch with the people. More pork barrel projects that gain local votes but drain the national treasury, the end result is a system where the spenders do not answer to the payers.
Forget any amendment as to taxation. How about a return to government that suffered if it was not responsible for ethical fiscal policy? Prior to World War I the United States survived just fine on tariffs, sales taxes, and fees. Congress understood it was responsible to all Americans for how money was spent. Somehow during the Great Depression (not that it was so great) Americans grew enamored of the idea that government not people were responsible for individual success or failure. If one succeeds they are taxed and if they fail the government is supposed to support them.
The essential truth is we are being taxed to pay for things that most of us would never agree to. I have joked that Americans should have the right to choose what part of the government their taxes will pay for. So those who support a strong military could earmark (sorry too easy a pun to pass up) money for that. More compassionate types who feel for the poor and down-trodden could designate their funds would finance social programs. Voting with our dollars to make clear the priorities of spending.
In reality we should be able to trust the House of Representatives to spend wisely. In Washington such a reality is buried under earmarks, deals that please special interest, and a general inability of representation to do more than keep their jobs.
If I am irresponsible with my money and don't pay my bills, then business and government will punish me. Repossession of goods, fines and penalties for non-payment of taxes, and a host of real consequences teach a person the importance of fiscal responsibility. However, in our Congress most leaders bounce checks, accept campaign contributions (aka bribes), and seldom if ever suffer a consequence for idiotic behavior. With this situation in mind is it logical to expect Congress to spend wisely or with national interest at heart?
Politicians like diapers should be checked often and changed regularly. The former are just as full of crap as the latter. At least with a diaper you get out as much as you put in. Perhaps as a recession grabs hold of American's wallets their will be real grass roots action.
Efforts to get rid of the 'temporary' income tax in favor of a system that taxes as you spend. Likewise since most nations impose taxes on our goods to pay their bills we could do the same. And finally, elect representation that acts in a manner that is respectful of Americans and the efforts their tax dollars represent.
It should not take an amendment to the Constitution to mandate logical and ethical taxation and spending by government. If it does then fiscal policy is the least of our worries.
Learn more about this author, T. M. Beeker.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
