|
What You Probably Didn't Know About Taxes
ATG: For
Your Information:
In 1954 the IRS codes contained
14,000 pages in Nine (9) Volumes;
In 1974 the IRS codes contained 19,500
pages in Twelve (12) Volumes;
In 2001 the IRS codes contained 45,000
pages in Twenty-five (25) Volumes.
Is it any wonder Forty (40) CPA's
given statistics for the same family of four for determining information
for a 1040 form came up with FORTY (40) different answers? And the IRS
gives out information to phone callers in the same mis-informed way. How
many hours did you spend trying to determine how many of your hard-earned
dollars belonged to an "out-of-control-spend-crazy-determined-to stay-in-power/control
Congress?"
Dump the income tax
Introduced by the Woodrow Wilson
"Progressives" in the years just before the First World War (along with
such other strokes of genius as the Federal Reserve Board, direct campaign-cash
bribing of U.S. senators, alcohol Prohibition, and the Harrison Narcotics
Act), America's income tax was first advertised as a surcharge on only
the richest Americans.
This virtually imperceptible levy
of 1 or 2 percent on the yacht-and-mansion set was to rise no higher than
7 percent, and then only on those who earned at least half-a-million bucks
a year -- real money, back when a $20 gold piece could buy the equivalent
of $250 in modern goods.
A funny thing happened just as the
economic boom of the 1920s got rolling, though: at virtually the same time
visionary investors were starting to get rich on the 1920s equivalent of
the World Wide Web -- Pierce Arrow, General Motors, Goodyear and Standard
Oil -- the darndest thing happened to the number of Americans officially
reporting annual incomes of a million dollars or more: They began to dwindle
away.
No, they hadn't all moved to Switzerland.
Rather, in the first major wave of unintended consequences flowing from
America's great experiment in socialist redistribution, the fat cats had
reached out and found advisors willing to invent two new professions for
them: the tax lawyer and the tax accountant.
Suddenly rich people were investing
in fine art and donating it to museums for the newfangled "tax deductions."
(Yes, art is nice. But this didn't create nearly as many jobs as a new
steel mill.) And previously lucrative corporations had to shrug and inform
Uncle Sam with heavy heart that they were barely breaking even, what with
all these new "licensing and consulting fees" they were suddenly paying
to newly incorporated shadow entities in places like Switzerland, Guernsey,
and the British Virgin Islands.
The games had begun.
The "emperor's new clothes" for the
mewling collectivists who still endlessly whine that any tax cut will "unfairly
benefit the rich" (read: unfairly reduce the amount of loot I get to allocate
for my vote-buying)?
The one thing these class warriors
don't want anyone to notice is that - after decades of lobbying for loopholes
- the rich can shelter so much of their income today that their accountants
often recommend they pass up a few deductions just "for appearance sake."
When Standard Oil heir Nelson Rockefeller appeared before the Senate for
confirmation as vice president in the 1970s, he was asked what he'd paid
the previous year in income taxes. Mr. Rockefeller replied that he had
not paid a thing. The Congressional Record does not record the way his
fellow millionaires in the Senate responded, but there are recurrent reports
that the senators cheered.
So who's left carrying the bulk of
the burden -- not only of the actual bill, but also devoting hour after
frustrating hour to deciphering and filling out all these government forms?
The middle-class wage slave, of course
-- since his or her employer dutifully reports his or her full compensation
to the IRS on a form W-2 each January.
Tax rates on these everyday Joes
and Janes have reached the point where the Tax Foundation reports 123 days
per year are now spent working for Uncle Sam -- a far higher percentage
of our time than sharecroppers were required to work for Massa down on
the old plantation. Where Americans were able to keep for themselves all
they earned after April 22 as recently as 1994, the foundation reports
Tax Freedom Day now doesn't arrive till May 3 -- the latest date in history.
Of course, that's not all attributed
to the federal income tax -- Medicare and Medicaid, sales and excise taxes,
property taxes, state and local levies are all factored in. But the federal
individual income tax remains by far the most burdensome of these.
Most Americans are willing to contribute
something to fund the legitimate, duly delegated activities of government.
No one wants to see our ambassador to France going without neckties and
socks. But does anyone believe that by spending 10 times as much as our
great-grandparents did, we now get a government that does a 10 times better
job defending our liberties?
The IRS and its code are so complicated
that the General Accounting Office reports IRS employees themselves give
wrong answers to taxpayer inquiries 47 percent of the time -- after failing
to answer the phone 37 percent of the time in the first place.
Americans hate the tax code and the
arrogant, inconsistent agency that enforces it ... and with good reason.
Since April 15 falls on a Sunday
this year, numerous 1040s -- and more "automatic extension" forms than
ever before -- will hit the mailboxes by midnight Monday. But "compliance"
rates are nonetheless falling markedly, as Americans wonder how they can
possibly be paying "their fair share" under a system more fraught with
loopholes and complexities than the worst fever dream ever to plague the
bureaucrats of Byzantium.
It's time to trash the whole system.
A flat tax -- with no redistributionist "brackets" -- does sound like a
slight improvement. But can we really trust this current bunch not to gimmick
the thing up with more socialist claptrap at the last moment? I don't think
so. Besides: such a scheme would still violate Mr. Jefferson's sober advice
not to "take the bread from the mouth of labor." Why squander the hunger
for reform on such a paltry adjustment?
A national sales tax? There's a recipe
for jailing kids who sell Kool-Ade on the sidewalk. And again, we'd just
be trading new tyranny for old.
Half of the federal government's
revenues still come from excises and other sources outside the personal
income tax. To find a federal government spending half as much as it does
today we would have to go back only a dozen years. Does anyone remember
sighing with frustration during the administration of Ronald Reagan that
"Darn it, this federal government is just way too small"?
No, the best reform of all would
be to get rid of the current federal income tax, and replace it with ...
nothing.
FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
Vin Suprynowicz is assistant
editorial page editor of the Las Vegas
Review-Journal. Subscribe
to his monthly newsletter by sending $72 to
Privacy Alert, 1475 Terminal
Way, Suite E for Easy, Reno, NV 89502. His
book, "Send in the Waco Killers:
Essays on the Freedom Movement,
1993-1998," is available at 1-800-244-2224,
or via web site
www.thespiritof76.com/wacokillers.html.
|