Less tax to our Federal Government with individual taxes only by the state government is the answer to several serious and expensive problems. I hope our moderators will allow me to post this lengthy post. If so, Thank You. See NoNip's other posts: 1) Get the IRS and our Federal government off our backs; 2) The Sheriff of Nottingham (Part 1) and the FairTax This post was one half of an article submitted to the Ahwatukee-Foothills community paper in Arizona in January 2003. "Here's a recommendation of an alternative tax method: go back to state governments being responsible for collecting from the taxpayer the taxes that the federal government demands or claims that it needs to operate. In other words, the taxpayer would not be liable to the federal government. The solution is realistic and feasible for a number of reasons, as follows. One reason is that there is a constitutionally supported, historical precedent for this. This is how our federal government originally obtained its taxes, by design for fear of what has now unfortunately come to pass. The problem then was that not all states paid the 'feds' on time. This created an 'unfair' environment and the federal government didn't get all the money it needed or asked for, creating the response we live with to-day. In much the same way, our federal government, to-day, using one excuse or another, limits the centralizing of too much unfavorable power in the United Nations by withholding (tax?) payments 'due' to the United Nations, our wannabe Big Brother.. These 2 precedents point to another reason why this alternative tax method works: it recognizes and solves the problem of the centralization of power in one much bigger entity(the federal government, United Nations, etc.) against the much smaller and weaker entity(the individual). From day one of approving the direct federal income tax to the individual in the early 1900's, the federal government was able to deceptively bypass our constitution's protections for the individual, and became instantly the big bully on the block - and it has just gotten bigger and more abusive, with new taxes, increases and 'bracket creep'. It no longer had to contend with the pack of about 50 state governments that were evening the playing field and keeping the federal bully in check. Please note that I make no mention of fairness, partisanship or perfect, idealistic solutions. Instead I refer to what career politicians understand too well: the balance of power, it's tendency to excess and abuse, or to centralize. Another reason this alternative is workable is because it is to be implemented outside of the system we currently use to change things like taxes which is to go for permission to the very bully, the very problem: an irresponsible, too large and too powerful federal government. To implement this method there would be no need for new taxes, laws, procedures or bureaucracies. There would be no black market for over-taxed goods or criminals willing to protect it violently. There would be no danger of double taxation. And last but far from least, this method would also solve the issue of individual privacy existing because of the reporting of personal, sometimes sensitive, information on tax returns - at least at the centralized level of the most powerful government on earth: our federal government. To implement this method every supporter/voter would need to promote this idea repeatedly to other citizens and political representatives, in particular our state governors. Here's a list summarizing the above reasons supporting this alternative method of taxation: 1) there are current and constitutionally supported past precedents, 2) it recognizes and solves the over-centralization of power in the federal government as the source of many ills, not just abusive taxation, 3) it solves the problem outside of the current corrupt system , 4) It simplifies: no new taxes, laws, procedures or bureaucracies are needed to implement it, 5) No creation of a black market or violent crime, 6) No risk of double taxation, 7) It recognizes the play of power and does not bog down in partisan semantics or arguments over fairness or ideal solutions, and finally individual privacy. "Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." --- Thomas Jefferson To those interested in repealing the 16th amendment as a fool-proof means to ending the annual federal income tax torture and controlling federal government excess: Please be careful of your great expectations - of expecting too much from repealing the 16th amendment. Many months ago I read the lengthy Brushaber vs. Union Pacific Supreme court decision of 1916 (one of the popular decisions referred to) and I understand it to say that even without the 16th Amendment, the direct income tax to individuals is within government's power to tax. The judge writing the opinion points out that whether or not the government will excessively burden the taxpayer is not the Court's business - it recognizes that as the business of government and its citizens. The judge further suggests that perhaps the purpose of the 16th amendment was to consolidate an understanding - a sophisticated or convoluted letter of intent, if you will - but not really an amendment creating a new power to tax. Even if my understanding were nothing more than a plausible but imaginative interpretation, that still won't stop tax-and-spend politicians from trying to profit from ideas like it. As for the previous Pollock vs. Farmers decision in 1895 repealing the income tax of that time, with its opinions it's literally the length of a book - far from clear and unequivocal to me. I gave up reading it near the half-way mark. The Brushaber decision summarizes the Pollock decision by saying that the reason the income tax of that time was repealed was because of the way it was defined. Perhaps unintentionally, it unfairly and unconstitutionally was prejudiced against certain types of taxpayers. This differentiates it from the present income tax system which our 16th amendment clarifies with: ' . . . incomes, from whatever source derived . ', thereby making it constitutional. Of course, repealing the 16th amendment would be good. It would at least have a good rallying effect and reverse the aforementioned intent. However, I hope it can be seen that we should be careful to look at the landscape beyond repealing the 16th amendment. I hope my following view of taxes in general will help clarify the issues. The IRS code uses the words 'voluntary compliance', some believe, to superficially pass constitutional muster. Our courts continue to support this view of the Code. In other words, when you sign that tax return you are supposedly not being coerced or threatened in any way - you are voluntarily choosing to comply. Similarly, I believe a tax to be as fair as a tax can be if the impact on those affected is so low that it is easy and simple to administer and could just as well be voluntary, or on the honor system, if you will. Low enough that most people will pay for it proudly or even gladly without feeling forced, just as a matter of, well, - honor. Low enough that those few who have no conscience to pay are hardly worth pursuing, and most certainly not by armed tax collectors. Somewhat like how our personal income tax started out to be. Other large organizations like churches throughout the world have already learnt this lesson the hard way and subsequently have still survived for centuries. For local example, remember when Thoreau was arrested and put in jail for failing to pay the tax for his father's preacher wages as narrated in 'On the Duty of Civil Disobedience' or 'Walden pond'."
