Call Me Skeptical But Politicians Will Raise Taxes

21 08 2007

Taxes feed the stupendous growth of government

By: William Robert Barber
Taxation is a mandatory absolute; as tangible to life as mortality and the effects of aging; however, taxing the people should be a measured act of last resort not the Go-To solution to the complex issues of governing.

Both the Democrats and Republicans will, have, and will again, with intentional consistently, raise taxes. Raising taxes and fees is the methodology of appeasing a voting segment of the population. After all how else does a politician get reelected to office if not to promise some benefit supported by some tax originate-derivative or a creative, or maybe not so creative, governmentally, imposed fee?

Tax policy in an election year is normally targeted to relieving the middle class of some unjust tax burden or eliminating some sort of wrongfully imposed transaction from the poor; of course, the politician does not blatantly establish the economic definition of middle class nor establish a measure to box in what is poor as part of their promising mantra. So what these political protagonists are inclined to prostheses to the common and unwashed is a voter’s favorite: Let’s take it from the rich! But defining rich can be tricky in a pluralist upwardly mobile voter population, therefore, rich, like middle class and poor is defined subjectively, by inferring that rich people are millionaires. Now, the politician is asking him or her self; who could possibly have issues with taking their money? The politician does not need to make a difficult decision in order to meet a budget requirement; hell no, all that needs to be done is raise the taxes on the rich.unfair.jpg
Tax revenues generated by a mathematical template derived from an arbitrary gross revenue or income and than inventing a percentage to the earnings or profit for the purpose of establishing a progressive tax maxim directly challenges the established lawfulness of the individual’s right to retain the fruits of her or he’s labor and beneficial circumstance.

Even after allowing for the positive effects of a number of popularly supported tax initiatives; even when those who govern practice such governing with fiscal discipline and sensible management; even after outstanding political leadership properly anticipates next year’s budget, all of these examples of sound governing will not abate the innate almost predetermined destiny of government to enlarge itself; the cost of governing appreciates in direct proportion to the size of government. Increasing taxes synergistically increases the largeness of government; large governments demand more tax revenue; the circle is complete. The larger the tax revenue the larger the government; indeed rarely, if ever, does government downsize relative to its cost to govern; government would rather create a deficient that downsize proportionate to tax revenue. Taxation as a policy of the state, respective of good intentions even with positive results, simply feeds a government that has an insatiable appetite for more taxes.

Governments always want more money to support more programs; programs that on the face may sound or are wholesome, reasonable, and even morally rightist. The intention of these tax supported programs are often touted as an proposal to eliminate a social misgiving; to right a wrong; to feed the hungry; cloth the poor; educate the great middle class; render health care to the sick; offer lower mortgages to the less than privileged; and of course there is the grand moral strategy: To even up the economic playing field by the implicit redistribution of resources.

Taxation directly affects the amount of discretionary income retained by an individual citizen; taxation or the governmental taking of an individual’s money implies that government can and will act in a more responsible, transparent, and honest manner-thus the individual, hypothetically, willfully surrenders to the governing collective in the interest of the whole. Is this the factual? Do we willingly give up the money to serve a higher purpose? Or is it just fear?

Because of the funding provide by taxation, government in its own right, is a proven vehicle of implied influence and physical power. The expressions of such influence and power is demonstrated every minute of every hour of every day; when the police officer issues a ticket; when officers of the court issues a citation or congress issues a subpoena; when members of the armed forces take the life of another. Every responsible citizen understands and recognizes that sanity and reasonableness favors the sensibility of united peoples designating their government to represent its interest and protect its vital assets.

Nevertheless, the bridge of consent founded on sanity, reasonableness, and sensibility could easily collapse when the confidence of the people in government results in a government that thinks of its self as omnipotent, unresponsive, and all knowing. Taxes feed the size of government; large governing administrations tend to inherently distance themselves from the people, soon it is implied, even by the appointed all powerful bureaucratic staff of the elected, that the problem of governing is directly tied to their non-cooperating, often ignorant constituency-soon it is the people that is the problem.

Large governments are insensitive bureaucracies fatalistically destined to be larger governments; with large governments, humility is lost in favor of privilege exampled by the elected, enacting their sway as if their responsibilities were only a sporting plenteousness disregard.

It is understood by every jurisdiction that all laws of the state must be obeyed; not understanding the law is not a defense. Even though, the average citizen, inclusive of the representatives of the very congress who composed and voted for the law, could pass a comprehension exam regarding the explicit, specific, or exact wording of the law they (congress) recently passed. Nevertheless, ignorance is not a viable excuse; the citizen is liable; the only exception is traffic laws; on that instance, every citizen respective of any an all particulars, must pass a comprehensive examination in order for a driver’s license to be issued-an interesting inconsistency of established practice; imagine, a citizen must pass a test in order to drive on the highways of the land.

But if one would example a law that is compulsory, as well as, paramount to the very founding anchor of state function: Take for example the federal tax laws regarding individual federal tax returns that are so complicated that even those fortunate enough to graduate from Princeton, Harvard, or Yale, hire a Certified Public Accountant to fill out their tax return. Congressman Ron Paul – April 2007

Of course these’experts’ do not accept any liability to the federal government for mistakes of representation; these licensed experts are not liable for mathematical errors, not even administrative errors; such transgressions are the sole legal responsibility of the taxpayer. Naturally, the same is true for businesses filling to the Internal Revenue Service; the (CPA) is not liable to the (IRS) for administrative or presentational mistakes; this absolution applies to certified audits as well. These guys and gals must have an excellent hard working lobby; or maybe, they and their professional brotherhood comprise the largest membership of elected representatives?

The average Joe is legally required to obey these tax laws with penalties for non-compliance; wherein, it is a know fact that the laws are ambiguous and often contradictory. In addition, there is the constant changing of tax code; withstanding, the government is unabashed in its insistence on penalty and interest for delinquency or mistakes.

Freedom has often been described as the right to prosper; one could go a little further and suggest that freedom is to live ones life absent of unwarranted intrusion, overt discrimination, domineering tactics, and corporal intimidation by government. If a citizen must rely on licensed experts such as attorneys and accountants in order to comply with the laws of the land and if such compliance requires either cash (for billing hours) or a great deal of specific knowledge; then, either the people are less free than originally lead to believe, the laws too complicated, or the people obtuse.

Remembering, it is the tax attorneys and accountants that charge a fee founded and dependant on, for the most part, on an unreasonable level of abstract ambiguity as to the context of the tax code and of course the reporting form must have Byzantine complexity. Simplifying the tax code or reporting form would not benefit these licensed professionals. Simplification of tax code or form could induce the average Joe to figure out and pay his taxes without paying an additional fee to these licensed tax experts. Tax revenue could see a significant jump in collections; how would the licensed experts answer that possibility?

I believe that taxes feed, often irrationally, the stupendous growth of government; I believe that government intrinsically conceives, and habitually scions ambiguity of law, apathy, corruption, and produce bigger government.

Therefore, less taxes, means smaller government; smaller government is a better solution tool than larger government; larger government is a problem within and without itself and a lethal detriment to our people’s interest and freedom.




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: