Skip to comments.
Scrapping The Slave Tax
WorldNetDaily ^
| August 20, 1999
| Alan Keyes
Posted on 09/15/2006 3:29:18 PM PDT by Man50D
Why is it that those who work hardest to deny the connection of "economic" and "moral" issues are also the ones who use money to manipulate the moral lives of Americans? The Bush/Forbes vote auction in Ames, Iowa, last weekend was just the latest example of corrosive big money at work in our political process. What could have been a genuine and informative test of grass roots support became instead a Roman circus of dancing girls, free banquets, and deluxe free transportation, as the money candidates worked hard to import enough well-fed and happy bodies to pump up their vote counts. The cause of self-government suffered as a result, as even Lamar Alexander can attest.
In Ames, as in the political life of the Republic, money matters precisely because of its effect on the moral foundation of our life. Economic policy should be judged first in view of its effect on the character of this people. Let's turn away from the circus in Ames and consider the relation of money and character on a larger, and more important stage.
In case anyone is seriously tempted to be content with the modest gestures toward tax cuts that Republicans are chattering about in Washington, let's remember that there is only one version of tax reform that is adequate for a free country: We must abolish the income tax and replace it with the tax system that was intended by our Founders -- a tax system that leaves our people in control of 100 percent of their dollars, reinforces the deep habits of responsible liberty, and puts in place a permanent and effective impediment to the unlimited fiscal ambitions of our government.
Abolition of the income tax must be the premier goal of moral conservatives in the area of tax policy, and we must pursue this goal above all because of its moral dimension. The tax issue is a moral issue because it raises fundamental questions about the way American citizens will insist that they be treated by their government. The income tax is a slave tax, and accepting it will eventually replace the American spirit of ordered liberty with a materialistic servility. We should eliminate the tax code, repeal the 16th Amendment, and fund the government through tariffs, duties and excise taxes (i.e., sales taxes) as the Founders intended for good reason.
Most people already pay state and local sales taxes, and so their implementation at the federal level would not be the wild and risky innovation some opponents imply. But even if it is difficult, the benefits would massively outweigh the effort. Just for starters, restoring tariffs and duties to their proper role will make foreign populations who benefit from access to the U.S. market share the burden of supporting the governmental system that guarantees its existence.
But the important reasons lie deeper. Under a national sales tax, our income will be exposed to taxation only AFTER we make the decision about how to use it. Instead of waiting upon the whim of politicians and bureaucrats, we will control our own tax burden by controlling the amount and pattern of our consumption. And in larger economic terms, an excise tax system would impose natural limits on the rate of taxation -- excessive rates would shrink revenue just as surely as excessive prices shrink the revenue of producers of consumer goods. The government's revenue from taxation would depend on the voluntary choices of millions of citizens, and a government that couldn't elicit from those citizens their agreement to make taxable purchases would simply have to do without the corresponding revenue -- a tax cut "passed" by the people directly, not the Congress! This is what the Founders intended to be our economic situation -- ordinary citizens in the driver's seat of the economic patterns of their own lives.
Liberty from the income tax would mean, of course, liberty from the IRS. We would no longer have our privacy invaded by a government that was interested -- officially and legally -- in rummaging about in our business to find out how much we make, where and how we make it, and what we do with it. These questions used to be considered private business, but now the government of this supposedly free people can ask them at its pleasure, compelling satisfactory answers with the threat of jail and confiscation. Such systemic bureaucratic intimidation is fundamentally contrary to any substantive notion of political liberty. By contrast, under a sales-tax system we would not have to report the facts of our individual economic situation or choices to a living soul.
The servile presumptions built into the income tax system have already had a deeply corrosive effect on the quality and extent of the responsibility we take for our own lives. The distance the income tax has already taken us down the road to servitude can be demonstrated by considering how rarely it is that we even question the government's right to know how much money we make. We blithely file our income tax every year, straining to report with accuracy and completeness to anonymous clerks at a federal agency matters that we don't expect any but our closest friends to ask us about, and which we probably would not discuss with our own children. Has it occurred to us sufficiently to ask what right or legitimacy there is to this fiscal exhibitionism?
The income tax is objectionable not only for economic reasons, and because the Founders took care to exclude it from the Constitution. It is also bad because it is based upon a premise that destroys one of the material foundations of privacy, and therefore of liberty. How can there be political liberty if there is no sphere of privacy beyond the reach of government? And how can there be such a sphere of privacy without a protected source of material support for it?
A free and vigilant people should never have tolerated this totalitarian beachhead for a moment. The income tax is an inherently communistic tax, precisely because one of the prerequisites of freedom is a sphere of privacy. It is based upon the premise of the preemptive claim of the government to full knowledge of the material foundations of private life. But when we allow any aspect of our lives to be treated as intrinsically the concern of the government, we implicitly accept the role of government to judge and control that aspect. The only reason government has to know about something is in order to regulate and control it. And so in granting in principle that the government has a right to know everything about our economic life, we have granted its right to control it as well. And if we intend to deny the government comprehensive control over our economic life, we will have to deny its claim to comprehensive knowledge -- which is the essence of the income tax.
Inevitably, then, the decades of implicit acknowledgment that we are not sovereign in our personal economic lives have been like a universal solvent, dissolving the private and personal resolve each of us should have to control responsibly the actions we take in the acquisition and expenditure of wealth. The habits of American liberty run deep and have shown impressive resiliency. But habits, though long-lived, can finally die. Eventually the logic of the slave tax will work its way through the whole man, and we will make our peace with servility. Unless, that is, we root the thing out soon.
The issue is not the fairness or amount of the tax burden. The tax itself is the problem. The income tax must be replaced with a tax structure the first premises of which are the capacity of American citizens to make their own economic decisions responsibly, and the intrinsic role of such economic responsibility in the formation of the character necessary to preserve liberty. Men and women not fit to control their wages are not fit to control their government -- this is the logic of the dilemma, and we must act accordingly.
If the moral case against the income tax is made forcefully and well, it will carry the day. The economic case against the tax is, of course, also overwhelming. And a further case can be made that technological developments will soon make the entire structure as much a relic as the doomed attempt of the Soviet Union to prevent its people from communicating among themselves. It is likely that the question is not whether to replace the income tax, but how to prepare for its collapse.
But these complementary arguments must not distract us from the fundamental one -- a free people that pays slave taxes to its government is willingly training itself for bondage.
TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: flattax; fraudtax; incometax; scam; slavetax; taxes; taxreform
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-166 next last
1
posted on
09/15/2006 3:29:19 PM PDT
by
Man50D
To: ancient_geezer; Taxman; pigdog; Principled; EternalVigilance; PhilWill; kevkrom; n-tres-ted; ...
2
posted on
09/15/2006 3:30:05 PM PDT
by
Man50D
(Fair Tax , you earn it , you keep it!)
To: Man50D
Good post and worth reading!!
3
posted on
09/15/2006 3:32:14 PM PDT
by
pigdog
To: Man50D
This 1999 spam has an expired date on it.
4
posted on
09/15/2006 3:41:45 PM PDT
by
RobFromGa
(The FairTax cult is like Scientology, but without the movie stars)
To: Man50D
"we will control our own tax burden by controlling the amount and pattern of our consumption"
THE reason the right and the left hate the Fair Tax.
To: Man50D
The income tax is a slave tax, and accepting it will eventually replace the American spirit of ordered liberty with a materialistic servility.Eventually? Alan! Take your head out of the sand.
Fair Tax BUMP!!
6
posted on
09/15/2006 4:37:20 PM PDT
by
upchuck
(Q:Why does President Bush support amnesty for illegal aliens? A:Read this: http://tinyurl.com/nyvno)
To: Taxman; pigdog; Principled; EternalVigilance; rwrcpa1; phil_will1; kevkrom; n-tres-ted; Zon; ...
A Taxreform ping for you all.
If anyone would like to be added to this ping list let me know.
John Linder in the House(HR25) & Saxby Chambliss Senate(S25) offer a comprehensive bill to kill all federal income, SS/Medicare payroll, and gift/estate taxes outright replacing them with with a national retail sales tax administered by the states.
H.R.25,S.25
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.
Refer for additional information:
7
posted on
09/15/2006 5:50:09 PM PDT
by
ancient_geezer
(Don't reform it, Replace it.)
To: Man50D; Gelato; Taxman; Waywardson; Broadside
Timeless classic.
Alan Keyes is still making sense.
The only thing that can make this wonderful piece of thinking and writing obsolete is for us to finally succeed at freeing the American people from the slave tax.
Economically, and in terms of restoring freedom, there's nothing bettter that we can do for our posterity.
To: Man50D; Admin Moderator
I wonder what this post is put into Bloggers & Personal since it clearly is not???
9
posted on
09/15/2006 7:29:16 PM PDT
by
pigdog
To: pigdog
10
posted on
09/15/2006 7:29:57 PM PDT
by
pigdog
To: EternalVigilance
Alan Keyes is still making sense. No matter what one thinks of Alan Keyes, I am a fan, he has the talent of getting straight to the heart of a matter.
11
posted on
09/15/2006 7:30:08 PM PDT
by
Mind-numbed Robot
(Not all that needs to be done, needs to be done by the government.)
To: pigdog
It was published in August 20, 1999. What were we thinking! I'll move it to breaking news immediately!
To: Admin Moderator
lol...;-)
You meanie, you...
To: pigdog
I wonder what this post is put into Bloggers & Personal since it clearly is not??? Only anti-Keyes flame-fests are worthy of News/Activism.
14
posted on
09/15/2006 10:04:44 PM PDT
by
Gelato
To: Man50D
A topic that is never out of date. It's as timely as ever. Subjects on liberty and morality typically are.
The National Conservative Weekly
Front Page April 17, 1998
EXCLUSIVE TO HUMAN EVENTS
The Case for Repealing the 16th Amendment
Abolish the Income Tax!
by Alan Keyes
The signs are growing that strong sentiment exists in America to abolish the income tax. Despite the attempts of some to distract and diffuse this sentiment--including the proposal merely to flatten the income tax without eliminating it--there appears to be a broad willingness in the country to consider the entire question of the income tax in principle.
In this moment of opportunity, the serious work of political leadership that needs to be done is the work of setting before the American people the only agenda that is going to restore our freedom. We must abolish the income tax and replace it with a tax system that was intended by our Founders when this nation began--a tax system that leaves our people in control of 100% of their dollars, and that gives to the earner the first use of every dollar that he or she earns.
Abolishing the income tax should be the premier goal of all tax discussion for the next several years. And, as important as this goal is at a policy level, it is perhaps just as important that conservative leaders use the debate about tax reform as an occasion to make clear to ourselves and to the American people the reasons that this change is necessary.
A Moral Imperative
We need to start talking about what is really going to make a difference in restoring the liberties of our people and of this nation. We should make clear at every opportunity that the income tax is a slave tax--inherently incompatible with freedom. Abolishing it is therefore not just economically feasible, it is a moral imperative if we are to meet our obligation to bequeath liberty to future generations.
This moral case against the income tax will carry the day. And by presenting the tax issue in its proper moral context, we will finally put to rest the foolish uneasiness with the moral agenda that reduces it to divisive disputes about theology or sex. The moral agenda is about self-government and how we preserve the character to sustain it.
The tax issue is a moral issue because it raises fundamental questions about the way American citizens will insist that they be treated by their government, and thus inevitably by each other. Are we a nation of grown-ups whose government is our tool, or are we a nation of children whose will and resources are subject to the control of Big Daddy government? This is what is at stake in the economic debate now beginning over tax policy.
What, concretely, should be done? We should repeal the 16th Amendment to the Constitution and thus return to the original Constitution of this country. And then we should simply abolish the tax code that inflicts the income tax on our people. We should fund the federal government through tariffs, duties and excise taxes (i.e., sales taxes) as the Founders intended. The income tax should be replaced with the kind of taxes most people are already paying-- the taxes on things we buy and that we pay only when we decide to buy them. By restoring tariffs and duties to their proper role, we will also make foreign populations who benefit from access to the U.S. marker share the burden of supporting the governmental system that guarantees its existence.
What will be the result of this change? Instead of being taxed before we decide how to spend our money, we will be taxed only after we decide what to do with it. And if we decide that we want to save it, we wont be taxed. If we decide that we want to invest it, we wont be taxed.
Instead of waiting upon the whim of politicians and bureaucrats, we will control our own tax burden by controlling the amount and pattern of our consumption.
In larger economic terms, an excise tax system would also impose natural limits on the rate of taxation. Politicians would have to think like business people, being careful not to raise the price of goods so high that a drastic fall in demand destroys the source of revenue. Also, if the excise tax rate on any good or service were set too high, everyone in the sector dependent on it would unite to seek relief. Instead of the Lets you and him fight divisiveness of the income tax system, the excise tax would be a unity tax, encouraging coalitions of interest across all income levels.
An excise tax system would mean that each citizen would decide what his tax burden was going to be. Not in every respect, of course. One couldnt simply decide to pay no taxes and otherwise live as he pleased. But rather than have our tax rate and tax payment determined before and apart from any decision that we make, economic or otherwise, we would instead determine and pay our taxes as the cumulative result of many, many decisions to purchase or not to purchase taxed items in the open market.
This is what the Founders intended to be our economic situation; ordinary citizens in the drivers seat of the economic patterns of their own lives.
Liberty from the income tax would mean, of course, liberty from the Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.) We would no longer have a tax code that requires the government to demand that we report our income to its agents and gives these agents the right to take away our homes and our goods, and to destroy the livelihood of our families, in order to improve their records at the I.R.S.
We would no longer have our privacy invaded by a government that was interested---officially and legally---in burrowing about in our business to find out how much we make, where we make it, and when we got it.
The Habits of a Free People
These are all questions that were once considered to be private business. Now they are everybodys business. The government of this supposedly free people can ask these questions, at its pleasure, compel answers, and throw into jail anyone unwilling or unable to answer them to the governments satisfaction. This is fundamentally contrary to any substantive notion of political liberty.
By contrast, under a sales tax system we would not have to report the facts of our individual economic situation or choices to a living soul.
Over time, the difference in these two patterns of economic life will have--has already had-- its effect on the quality and extent of the responsibility we take for our own lives. And as the Clinton administration explores new ways of manipulating the income tax to coerce our choices through targeted tax cuts, we begin to see the next stage of the manipulation. Now we are permitted the carrot of tax relief, but only when we make the choices the government directs and dutifully report them to our master.
This manipulation has already had a chilling effect on the willingness of our moral leaders in the churches to speak out against the moral abuses being encouraged by political and judicial decisions. Fear of losing their tax-exempt status has discouraged religious leaders from their traditional role as the nations conscience, the sparks of its passion for moral decency.
Tolerance for moral turpitude in the highest offices in the land passes without remark. Meanwhile, the virtue of charity is corrupted by the expectation of gain as people give money to get money, rather than to please the living God.
The distance the income tax has already taken us down the road to servitude can also be demonstrated by considering how rare it is for anyone even to raise the question of what right the government has to know how much money we make.
Do we ask ourselves this question anymore? We blithely file our income tax every year, putting down all kinds of details about where our money comes from and telling people in the government what our income is. Has it occurred to us to ask in the course of doing that, what right at all do they have to know this? What legitimacy is there to this law?
Let me give you an illustrative comparison. Suppose that tomorrow the government were to levy a tax on sexual activity, and were to require that, at the end of a certain time, maybe on a monthly basis, every citizen had to report all sexual activity so that the tax could be accurately assessed. Would we accept that as a legitimate requirement? Or would it occur to us to stand up and tell the government that such matters are none of its business?
We do have a lingering sense that there are certain things about our lives that ought to be private, and certain relations we have with others that ought to be private. Why is it that after many centuries in which it was understood that ones income was his private business, we accept a regime that requires that we report this private fact about our lives to a government agency?
Whatever the reasons for accepting this regime in the first place, we accept it now largely because we have lived with it for decades and become used to it.
But that is to say that the income tax has managed, in 80 years, to deaden the zeal for liberty--and vigilance in its preservation--that were once synonymous with the word American. We must ensure that the debate on tax reform includes a serious attempt to raise these questions.
In this way, we can open the eyes of our fellow citizens to the fact that the income tax is not only bad for economic reasons, and because the Founders didnt care for it and didnt write it into the Constitution. It is bad because it is based on a premise that destroys one of the material foundations of privacy. How can there be a private sphere without a protected source of material support for it?
A free and vigilant people should never have tolerated this for a minute. The income tax is an inherently communistic tax, because one of the prerequisites of freedom is a sphere of privacy. And if you destroy the material foundations of that sphere of privacy, you have destroyed the possibility of freedom.
Yet the income tax is based upon a premise that hands to the government what it needs to destroy the material foundation of private life.
When we treat any aspect of our lives as intrinsically the concern of the government, we implicitly begin to accept the role of government in judging and controlling that aspect.
Government is a practical entity-- the only reason it needs to know things is so it can do something about them. Whenever we grant, in principle, that the government has a right to know, we are granting it a right to control.
For this reason, the income tax is a kind of universal solvent, dissolving the private and personal resolve each of us should have to control responsibly the actions we take in the acquisition and expenditure of wealth.
We have survived the income tax as long as we have because the habits of American liberty run deep, and the American people have not quickly or easily taken into their souls the habits of servitude suggested by the actions the income tax requires.
But our fitful and sporadic tax "revolts" are being patiently waited out by our leaders like the increasingly exhausted attempts of a hooked fish to break free. Line is played out, the illusion of liberty is permitted, and all the while the deep conformity of the captive to the will of the captor is secured.
We need to pause and reflect, and remember to ask the fundamental questions before it is too late. We need to resist the pressure to be concerned only about the amount or fairness of the tax burden, and start to ask instead whether the current form of taxation itself is legitimate.
And when we ask that question, we must insist that what ultimately measures the legitimacy of government policy in America is not simply the procedure by which it becomes law, and much less the revenue it produces, but the degree to which it is prudently ordered to the production and preservation of the habits and character that befit a free people.
Conservatives must show that it is not only the socialists who are able to see the moral implications of taxes. Otherwise we will not be able to lead the nation to a fundamental agreement on a wise and lasting reform of taxation.
It is time that we insist on a tax policy for grown-ups, and that means abolishing the income tax and replacing it with a tax structure whose first premise is the capacity of American citizens to make their own economic decisions responsibly.
The tax debate is an opportunity for conservatives to demonstrate the unity of the moral and economic agenda, and to demonstrate concretely the confidence we do and must have in the people of this country. It is a profoundly democratic opportunity, and thus a great duty for anyone aspiring to be an American statesman and lead this people.
We must lead this people to the abolition of the slave tax, and for the right reasons. The question of fundamental tax reform is a test of the statesmanship of our politicians and of the quality of citizenship of our people.
15
posted on
09/15/2006 10:40:19 PM PDT
by
Gelato
To: Admin Moderator; Jim Robinson; Taxman; pigdog; Principled; EternalVigilance; rwrcpa1; phil_will1; ..
It was published in August 20, 1999.
Hmmm, it would seem articles of principles touching limited government, liberty and morality are no longer suitable for topics News/Activism on FR.
Guess this leaves out posting anything from Declaration of Indepencence, the Constitution, Madison's Notes, The Federalist Papers, or the works of any of the founders regarding our rights etc from under the Activism banner of Free Republic.
Apparently they are all now considered merely blog and personal chatter for being published prior to 2000.
16
posted on
09/15/2006 11:37:44 PM PDT
by
ancient_geezer
(Don't reform it, Replace it.)
To: ancient_geezer; Admin Moderator
The Mods have this thing about the definition of 'activism'. Apparently, they posted some vanity thread back in the spring which explains it all, and you're supposed to know that.
It could be in 'bloggers & personal', but who really knows.
Why they won't put their posting rules on a link to the main FR home page is still a mystery. I guess they want it to be a 'living' document? No bold "James Madison" signature for the Mods I guess. Wussies.
17
posted on
09/16/2006 2:26:20 AM PDT
by
ovrtaxt
(We gotta watch out for the Hellbazoo and the Hamas...)
To: ovrtaxt; Admin Moderator; Jim Robinson
I see.
So we are not allowed to post excerpts from sources such as the Federalist Paper's, the Constitution, Quotes of the founding father's in regards the Bill of Rights, or even the Bill of Rights for that matter in the News/Activism forum because they were written before 2000.
Since such are neither sourced from blogs, same as this article. Nor can such be considered a personal opinion, they are written by well known authors and commentators other than the poster. It would seem that the bloggers/personal forum is even less appropriate.
Unfortunately there does not appear to be an old-documents and political commentary forum on FR for furthering the goals of conservatism and limited government.
It would appear the Mods have written the original goals of FR out of the forums.
18
posted on
09/16/2006 2:41:21 AM PDT
by
ancient_geezer
(Don't reform it, Replace it.)
To: ancient_geezer; Your Nightmare; Always Right; Dimples; sitetest; lewislynn; balrog666; xcamel; ...
I think it is ridiculous to compare your old FairTax spam opinion pieces to the Federalist Papers, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights.
You continue to use the Free Republic forum as a recruiting tool for your FairTax cult, and then you complain because people are on to your game. There is nothing new here that hasn't already been discussed before, you are just trolling for more cult members. If you find some FairTax "news", I'm sure that you'll be able to get it posted in the right spot. But since it's a dying topic, as evidenced by these threads you keep posting from many years back-- there might not be much news in the FairTax future.
19
posted on
09/16/2006 4:18:02 AM PDT
by
RobFromGa
(The FairTax cult is like Scientology, but without the movie stars)
To: ovrtaxt
already posted on IrrelevantFairTaxSpam.com
20
posted on
09/16/2006 4:28:39 AM PDT
by
RobFromGa
(The FairTax cult is like Scientology, but without the movie stars)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-166 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson