Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Top Ten Civil Liberties Abuses of the Income Tax
http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0204-2.html ^

Posted on 09/20/2006 10:32:34 AM PDT by tpaine

Top Ten Civil Liberties Abuses of the Income Tax

by Chris Edwards

Any tax system creates a threat to individual liberty because "the power to tax involves the power to destroy," as Chief Justice John Marshall observed.

But the federal income tax and its enforcement harm civil liberties much more than necessary to raise needed funds for the government. Certainly, the IRS performs poorly and too easily abuses the rights of citizens. But ultimately Congress is to blame for creating an excessively complex and high-rate tax system.

New laws to increase taxpayer protections and replacement of the income tax with a simpler, flatter consumption-based tax could greatly reduce the following 10 areas of civil liberties abuse.

1. "Vertical" Inequality. Although equality under the law is a bedrock American principle, the income tax treats citizens unequally.

2. "Horizontal" Inequality. Even people with similar incomes are treated unequally by the many exemptions, deductions, credits, and other intricacies of the income tax.

3. Complexity, Ambiguity, and Uncertainty. Certainty in the law is a bulwark against arbitrary and abusive government. But there is no certainty under the income tax because it rests on an inherently difficult-to-measure tax base, uses no consistent definition of "income" or other concepts, and is a labyrinth of narrow and limited provisions created by politicians intent on social engineering. Individuals are baffled by the complex rules on capital gains, pension and savings plans, and a growing list of targeted incentives. Those complexities would be eliminated under a flat consumption-based tax system.

4. Huge Size and Instability of Tax Law. Citizens are required to know the nation's laws and comply with them. Yet federal tax rules are massive in scope and constantly changing. Tax laws, regulations, and related documentation span 45,662 pages.

5. Lack of Financial Privacy. The broad-based income tax necessitates a large invasion of financial privacy that a low-rate consumption-based tax could avoid. The IRS regularly gains access to a myriad of personal records, such as mortgage records, credit card data, phone records, banking and investment records, real property transaction data, and personal correspondence. This broad IRS authority to obtain records without court supervision has been referred to by the Supreme Court as "a power of inquisition."

6. Denial of Due Process. The Fifth Amendment right to due process is ignored in many respects by the federal income tax regime. Due process requires that government provide accused citizens a clear notice of a claim against them and allow the accused a hearing before executing enforcement action.

7. Shifting of the Burden of Proof. For non-criminal tax cases -- the vast majority of cases -- the tax code reverses the centuries-old common law principle that the burden of proof rests with the accuser. Except in some narrow circumstances, the IRS does not have to prove the correctness of its determinations. When the IRS makes erroneous assessments, as it often does, citizens carry the burden to prove that they are wrong.

8. No Trial by Jury in Tax Court. Despite Sixth and Seventh Amendment guarantees of trial by jury, the federal tax system carefully sidesteps such protections. To contest an IRS tax calculation prior to assessment, one must file a petition in the U.S. Tax Court. But since this is an administrative court, not an Article III court, no jury trial is required.

9. Unreasonable Searches and Seizures. In most situations, the Fourth Amendment guarantees that, before the government can search private property and seize records, it must demonstrate to a court that there is "probable cause" to believe that lawless conduct exists. However, the IRS's summons authority under tax code section 7602 allows it to obtain records of every description from any person without showing probable cause and without a court order.

10. Forced Self-Incrimination. The requirement to file tax returns sworn to under penalty of perjury operates to invalidate the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. Citizens face a legal dilemma. On the one hand, refusing to file a return would expose a citizen to prosecution for failure to file. On the other hand, disclosing information sought in tax returns constitutes a waiver of Fifth Amendment protections. The IRS can and does release that information to federal, state, and local agencies for both tax and non-tax law enforcement purposes


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: fairtax; fraudtax; govwatch; irs; libertarians; scam; taxes; taxreform
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-193 next last
To: lucysmom
"... I am confident that we will discover just how creative and resourceful people can be ..."

You can be as "confident" as you like but that doesn't alter the facts that tax compliance under the FairTax is accomplished when the taxpayer purchases and gets the receipt for the things bought. That's it - he's complied.

Since 3.6% of the retailers collectively make 85.7% of all U.S. sales, there'll be damned little evasion going on no matter how much "confidence" you have in your lawbreaking pals - nor have you ever been able to offer a reasonable explanation of how this might occur.

161 posted on 09/23/2006 7:12:54 PM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Many conservatives on FR oppose such a tax.. Why?

I, for one, have made past arrangements that were due to a calculation based upon the federal tax free nature of certain income in that arrangement. Changing that equation would cost my future stream of income a substantial amount of money.

Also, the after tax savings that I've accumulated over my lifetime (I'm very near retirement now) would see an immediate and drastic reduction in real value, due to the change in paying tax on income vs. paying tax on spending.

If the change would make provision for the lost value of savings, and the tax policy inducement to accept a tax free stream of income over a greater taxable stream of income (tax free municipal bonds for instance), it might be a "fair tax." Without provisions like that, it would be highway robbery of people so situated.

162 posted on 09/23/2006 8:24:58 PM PDT by GregoryFul (cheap, immigrant labor built America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

Ping


163 posted on 09/23/2006 8:40:13 PM PDT by Taxman (So that the beautiful pressure does not diminish!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn
[ How can they tax stuff you OWN?... Answer; they can't.. / Actually they can and probaly would. ]

You miss the irony of the question.. Kentucky and Missouri already have a tax like that.. probably a few other States too..

The irony is the american people totally freeping oblivious of all this.. Eye rolling tongue hanging out with spittle babbling oblivious..

164 posted on 09/23/2006 9:53:12 PM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
How can they tax stuff you OWN?... Answer; they can't..

You miss the irony of the question..

I was responding to your answer ("they can't") to your own question ("how can they?").
Kentucky and Missouri already have a tax like that.. probably a few other States too..
Then you answer some states already do...sorry for my(?) confusion.
165 posted on 09/23/2006 10:02:59 PM PDT by lewislynn (Fairtax = lies, hope, wishful thinking, conjecture and lack of logic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: pigdog; lucysmom
Since 3.6% of the retailers collectively make 85.7% of all U.S. sales
So much for that "broad tax base" we've heard so much about.
166 posted on 09/23/2006 10:05:17 PM PDT by lewislynn (Fairtax = lies, hope, wishful thinking, conjecture and lack of logic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

Tariffs are Constitutional. Income and consumption taxes were never meant to be collected to fund the government under our constitutional system.


167 posted on 09/23/2006 10:08:19 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Your Nightmare
You said it was the Tax Panel. It was from the tax panel.

Now pigdog will say the figure is bogus because the tax panel's mission was to preserve the income tax, while the FairTax three's motives are pure.

168 posted on 09/24/2006 7:09:49 AM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: GregoryFul
"... and the tax policy inducement to accept a tax free stream of income over a greater taxable stream of income ..."

I'm not sure your meaning is clear. Does this statement mean that you prefer to have taxable income rather than untaxed income - since that's what it seems to say???

Do you believe that there should be some "inducement" for you to "accept" a tax free income stream???

169 posted on 09/24/2006 7:26:44 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
Well, no ... that's not what I said at all. I said the figure was wrong because it was too high due to the technique used by the Tax Panel of assuming changes to a theoretical "tax system" which was tot the FairTax and pretending it was reviewing the FairTax - which it wasn't.

In addition, they made assumptions that there would be from 15 to 30% evasion to help boost the rate of the nNon-FairTax-ish plan they devised while having no information showing that to be a valid assumption at all. Under the FairTax, the act of buying the taxable item and receiving the receipt constitutes compliance in and of itself and beyond that no "evasion" is possible since the tax law would have been completely complied with at the point of purchase.

Theft of the government;'s tax money is a different sort of crime, but not "evasion". And it could be more easily dealt with than taxpayer evasion - which is the point of showing a small percentage of the retailers do a large percentage of he business.

170 posted on 09/24/2006 7:34:45 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: pigdog
Under the FairTax, the act of buying the taxable item and receiving the receipt constitutes compliance in and of itself and beyond that no "evasion" is possible since the tax law would have been completely complied with at the point of purchase.
Really? The retailer couldn't simply not remit the tax?

Would the state worker put on his federal tax collection hat and go knock down the door of the consumer and demand to see a receipt?

171 posted on 09/24/2006 7:46:32 AM PDT by lewislynn (Fairtax = lies, hope, wishful thinking, conjecture and lack of logic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: pigdog
Since 3.6% of the retailers collectively make 85.7% of all U.S. sales, there'll be damned little evasion going on no matter how much "confidence" you have in your lawbreaking pals - nor have you ever been able to offer a reasonable explanation of how this might occur.

There have been many suggestions as to how the tax could be evaded. Business creating an income stream by purchasing items for their businesses and reselling a year later as used, for instance.

I know of someone who raises lamb for his family's use. He trades the surplus with neighbors for beef, pork, chicken and eggs. The FairTax would make it worth while for more people to do the same. Perhaps a local mechanic would like to get in on the deal, and a carpenter too. Farmer's markets are a big deal around here, seems that would be very difficult and costly to bring into compliance.

According to the tax panel report: Empirical evidence suggests third-party reporting substantially improves tax compliance, particularly when tax rates are high. For the portion of income from which taxes are not withheld and there is no third-party reporting, income tax evasion rates are estimated to be around 50 percent. There is no third-party reporting in a retail sales tax. Retailers would add their retail sales tax to the pre-tax price for their goods and would remit that amount to the government, but shoppers would not separately report what they bought, and at what price, to the government. The government would rely on retailers alone to report their own taxable and exempt sales.

On one hand, FairTaxers admit that changing the way taxes are collected will change behavior, increase saving, for instance; while ignoring behavioral changes that would erode tax collections. For now, 3.6% of retailers make 85.7% of sales. In addition, ENRON alone should make it clear that even large corporations are capable of criminal behavior on a grand scale.

172 posted on 09/24/2006 7:58:53 AM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn
"Really? The retailer couldn't simply not remit the tax?

Would the state worker put on his federal tax collection hat and go knock down the door of the consumer and demand to see a receipt?"

Certainly the retailer could "simply not remit the tax" but then he'd have a great amount of backing and filling and covering up to do at audit time since he's agreed in writing to collect the tax. I doubt that the large retailers who handle something like 86% of retail sales will get involved in that to destroy their business.

Of the smaller retailers left, that means there are more audit resources devoted to them. And states have a lot of ways to "audit through" a business to see if sales are reasonably correct and the paperwork exists. Even these smaller retailers have little reason to not handle the tax amounts correctly since it is the taxpayer (not the retailer) paying the tax and the retailer is paid to do this. the retailer would gain nothing but trouble should he take it upon himself to "help the customer" (for some unknown reason) since he, the retailer, is still liable for the tax and would gain nothing by doing so.

There's no reason for "demanding to see a receipt" from the consumer since he has already complied with the tax law by buying the item and receiving the receipt. It's the seller who would be the focus point - not for "evasion" since there would have been none - but for theft of the government's tax money the merchant contractually agreed to collect and forward. That's not "evasion" but "theft".

173 posted on 09/24/2006 8:05:41 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: pigdog
Certainly the retailer could "simply not remit the tax" but then he'd have a great amount of backing and filling and covering up to do at audit time since he's agreed in writing to collect the tax. I doubt that the large retailers who handle something like 86% of retail sales will get involved in that to destroy their business.

The retailer has agreed voluntarily?

The study found the average dollar loss per employee theft case to be $1,341.02 compared to $207.18 for the average shoplifting incident.

http://www.crimedoctor.com/employee_theft.htm

Now, prove how the loss occurred.

Of the smaller retailers left, that means there are more audit resources devoted to them.

So we assume the large retailer is honest and subject the small mom and pop store to increased scrutiny? Doesn't that increase the small business compliance costs? Nice!

174 posted on 09/24/2006 8:32:34 AM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: pigdog
Certainly the retailer could "simply not remit the tax" but then he'd have a great amount of backing and filling and covering up to do at audit time since he's agreed in writing to collect the tax. I doubt that the large retailers who handle something like 86% of retail sales will get involved in that to destroy their business.

Nobody gets involved in criminal activity to destroy their business, they think they can get away with it.

Ehibit A, ENRON; Exhibit B, Arthur Andersen

175 posted on 09/24/2006 8:37:16 AM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: pigdog
I doubt that the large retailers who handle something like 86% of retail sales will get involved in that to destroy their business.
This is another one of the FairTaxer's lies. Large retailers do 80% of the retail sale of all goods, but the FairTax taxes more than just goods - it taxes all services, too. It would be taxing my lawn guy, my house keeper, the guy that cuts my hair, my dentist, etc. Large retailers would not be collecting 80% of the FairTax.
176 posted on 09/24/2006 9:44:10 AM PDT by Your Nightmare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: pigdog
But clearly $429 billion os much less than the $600 billion the Tax Panel dredged up out of nowhere.
Right, the president's hand picked tax panelists are all a bunch of baffoons. But you, the faceless clown using a phony name from god knows where on the internet are the expert....Got it.
177 posted on 09/24/2006 9:58:42 AM PDT by lewislynn (Fairtax = lies, hope, wishful thinking, conjecture and lack of logic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
"The retailer has agreed voluntarily? "
Since you won't read the bill you'll never know I guess, but that's covered in the bill.

Employee theft is quite a different thing from the retailer stealing the government's tax money which he has agreed in writing to collect and forward and be paid for so doing. Your link isn't meaningful in this context.

Are you trying to take the position that the retailers should not be subject to audit at all but left to go their own way??? Weren't you the poster recently arguing about how dishonest everyone was and how many would "evade" the FairTax (without specifying what "evade" meant or how they might do that or how common this would be)???

178 posted on 09/24/2006 2:38:36 PM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
The discussion isn't about "criminal activity" but about stealing the government's tax money which the firm had agreed to collect in writing and which they'd be paid for doing.

As I recall, the two firms you mentioned weren't in that category but if you can demonstrate convincingly they WERE so involved, I'd be glad to hear about it.

179 posted on 09/24/2006 2:43:27 PM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Your Nightmare
Certainly services are taxed under the FairTax.

Are you trying to claim that there are no dominant businesses in the services end of things??? I can think of quite a number and they'd fall into the category of large businesses not likely to chance destroying their businesses by failing to keep the agreement they make with the tax authorities to collect and forward the taxes.

180 posted on 09/24/2006 2:49:05 PM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-193 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson