Posted on 04/28/2005 11:40:37 AM PDT by spintreebob
The nature of government is that there will always be more demands on the public purse than there are resources.
This explains why politicians spend their days plotting new ways to raise revenue because the more they raise, the more votes they can buy. The consequence of this is that over time, once rational folks who win elective office gradually convert from a taxpayers’ frame of reference to a tax raiser’s mindset.
This capitol city version of the Stockholm syndrome is infuriating for taxpayers because politicians get paid to spend their days dreaming up new ways to raise their share of the economy.
Taxpayers, on the other hand, must spend most of their time creating the pie the government is trying to claim. Only after that’s done can the average citizen spend time resisting the government’s mission creep and the reality of this disadvantage helps explain why taxes seems to be an ever-upward ratchet.
Two solutions to this powerlessness appeal to taxpayers: term limits and tax reform. Term limits, which have the subtlety---but not the permanence---of the guillotine, have almost disappeared as a movement. In contrast, tax reform is getting a hearing this summer, at least the federal level.
The president has formed an advisory committee to produce a report by the end of July. As part of its work, the panel has asked for suggestions about how our tax system might be improved. Excellent advice comes from Americans for Fair Taxation and their very able director Tom Wright. They propose to exchange income taxes for consumption taxes and the organization is making headway with policymakers. Find out why by visiting www.FairTax.org.
While “Fair Taxers” comprehensively address the supply side of taxation, they don’t really wrestle with the demand side.
To control demand, it’s wise to remember one of the major reasons why income taxes came into being in the first place. The populist movement that brought us income taxes nearly a century ago wanted to punish success. Since then, tax raisers have set Americans against each other as the justification for raising taxes.
It’s time to recognize income tax’s original intent and apply it to those who demand revenues.
Politicians draw their authority from votes, not revenues, so it makes sense to “tax” votes they seek. In the same way they tax what you work for, isn’t it just as fair we tax them on the basis of what they work for?
So, in the spirit of the Tax Advisory panel’s call for suggestions, here are mine. Modeled after the principal tax raising schemes politicians have developed over the years, please consider:
An Estate Tax assessed against heirs in public office like Richie Daley, Jerry Brown, Chris Dodd and even George Bush. Why should the children of successful politicians be able take advantage of the father or mother’s achievements when challengers do not have this advantage? Under this tax, descendents of elected officials seeking their own office would forfeit a certain percentage of votes depending on the office's importance and the chronological separation from their ancestor’s incumbency. In Illinois, Congressman Dan Lipinski directly succeeded his father in the same office so fairness demands a high estate tax. President Bush, descended from two politicians, President Bush 41 and US Senator Prescott Bush, would be subject to double taxation.
Progressive Income Taxes are a central feature of our current system that should be extended to politicians. As politicians continue in office, they accumulate votes and name recognition. Why should they have the benefits of this achievement when their challengers do not? Under this new taxation proposal, incumbents would be assessed an increasing portion of their votes for every term they have served.
Under this plan, first term incumbents would have a small portion of their vote totals deducted, progressing as they accumulate seniority. Long term politicians like Senators Kennedy and Byrd would be in the 70% bracket. The “taxed” votes would be equitably redistributed to deserving challengers on Election Day.
Politicians advocating “fairness” often excoriate conventional taxpayers who read the laws politicians pass and then arrange their affairs to minimize their tax liability. That fairness charge gives the commission standing to investigate politicians who arrange their districts to minimize election difficulties. Gerrymandering is the political equivalent of holding tax-free bonds and fairness demands this unfair behavior be subject to an Alternative Property Tax.
Under this tax, politicians would count their votes on Election Day. Then, they would be required to re-count their votes with a “vote tax” penalty based on the number of corners and the irregularity of their district’s shape. Election officials would accept the lower of the two totals.
Before the income tax, Tariffs were paid on imported goods. Why abandon a good thing? Under this plan, carpetbaggers would be assessed a vote tariff when they cross borders to run for office in states other than their own.
Hillary Clinton’s run in New York would be subject to this vote-tariff, as would Alan Keyes in Illinois. Because tariffs are usually a fixed amount rather than a proportional amount, candidates would have to win a certain percentage to pay the tariff. Dr. Keyes’ anemic run against Barack O’Bama did not produce enough votes to pay the likely vote tariff. The solution would be a Net Operating (Electoral) Loss and a NOL carry-forward assessed against Keyes’ next electoral run.
The oil industry can also provide some precedent and balance. Countervailing the Keyes situation could be an Excess Plurality Tax assessed against the sort of overwhelming election vote totals Senator Obama earned. Based on the excess profits tax oil companies pay when they earn “obscene” profits, this tax would be assessed only when some very important event occurred. Oil companies raising the price of fuel when world oil prices double or a politician viciously exploiting the collapse of the Illinois Republican Party would qualify. As compensation, Republicans should demand a Voter Depletion Allowance.
The commission could extend these initial concepts into a complex and destructive tax system for politicians.
For example, excise taxes might be assessed against very attractive haircuts like John Kerry’s and John Edwards while credits might be appropriate for Dick Cheney’s coiffure. Taxes that mimic Sales and Use Taxes, Transfer Taxes, Special Assessments and, of course, “User Fees” will clearly follow.
Politicians may find the tax system this column describes to be ridiculous, vindictive, venal, vague and involuntary. I’d bet Citizens for Fair Taxation couldn’t agree more! © 2005 IllinoisLeader.com -- all rights reserved
politicians should be drug-tested. (they oppose it)
it would probably be a good idea to run their DNA through the national DB as well
What we should do is sue the politicians for malpractice. Put them on notice that we are going to come after them and take their property away if they bankrupt social security and medicare.
If they had to pay for their mismanagement, like doctors must, then I suspect we would get a better quality of government.
in Los Angeles there is a law forbidding lawsuits against the pols for failing fiduciary duty
DRUG TESTS FOR POLITICANS NOW!!!
There was one state a couple of years back where the legislature passed a bill mandating drug testing for themselves. A few "we're above you common people" legislators had it thrown out in court.
I've often said that no one should be a legislator in MN
if they have any of the disqualifiers on their record that
would bar any citizen from getting a permit to carry here.
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.