The "Fair Share" Cannibals
The idea of forcing someone to pay his "fair share" of taxes
through progressive income taxes applies only to a society of
cannibals. It applies to a society where the majority has the
right to devour those people who earn more than others. Paying
your "fair share" in taxes implies that all of us have a
responsibility to support the rapacious Welfare/Entitlement
State, but some of us have more responsibility than others. It
implies that the more money you earn, the larger your "fair
share" should be, simply because you have more to give. In other
words, the "fair share" principal embedded in our progressive
income-tax code brings to America, the "land of the free," Karl
Marx's dictum from his Communist Manifesto, "from each according
to his ability, to each according to his need." This dictum is
the philosophy of socialist looters who are consumed by envy.
This policy simply justifies stealing from those people who earn
more than others. And since there's always someone richer or
poorer than you, the progressive income tax leads to universal
looting, on a massive scale. Through the progressive income-tax
system, everyone steals from the next victim above him on the
economic ladder. Paying your "fair share" of taxes appeals to
looters or parasites who have no idea how wealth is created or
why it's wrong to steal. To see what fair share really means,
imagine the following. You have $10,000 saved in your local
bank. You worked for ten years to save this money. The bank then
gets a new "progressive" manager. The manager finds that most of
the bank's customers have less than $500 in deposits, which he
thinks is grossly unfair. So he makes new rules for the bank. He
sends you a letter telling you that he is going to
"redistribute" your $10,000 to all his poorer depositors so that
everyone has their "fair share." Do you think the bank manager
should be arrested or sent to the loony bin? What if the
government passes a law that lets him get away with this theft?
You know that the bank manager has no right to "redistribute"
your money. Does the government? Yet progressive income taxes
and entitlement programs do exactly the same thing the bank
manager did. In 2005, if you earned $80,000, you now pay a 28
percent income-tax rate, or $22,400 in Federal income taxes. A
person who earns $28,000 a year now pays a 15 percent income-tax
rate, or $4200 in Federal income taxes. If you pay $22,400 in
income taxes, do you get five times more in services from the
Federal government than the person who paid only $4200 in taxes?
No you do not--you get the same "services." In effect, those who
earn higher incomes are looted far more than low-income earners
to pay for Welfare/Entitlement programs that are now devouring
our country. By what right? What is the excuse that liberals
make to justify this legalized looting of people who earn more
than others. Simply this, that low-income earners need more
money for all the goods and services they are "entitled" to.
Since higher-income earners have more money, they claim, these
higher-income earners have a moral "duty" to hand over their
"excess" money to the "less fortunate." In other words, they say
"you have the money, we want it, so we'll take it from you, and
we'll use the progressive income tax to do this. In effect, the
federal government becomes a fence for stolen property. Well,
any mugger does the same thing when he puts a gun to your head
and says, "your money or your life." The mugger sees that you
have money, he wants it, so he has decided to take your money at
the point of a gun. Our government income-tax collectors are
simply legalized muggers who loot our money through the
progressive income tax. In a free society, the taxes a person
pays should depend on the services he gets from government, his
agent. We should only pay for services that we personally use or
benefit from. We could devise a system where each of us paid
taxes for government services we bought -- a voluntary trade
between a citizen and his agent. But this system would be
possible only if America had a small, limited government. This
goal is entirely possible. In 1914, the entire federal
government's budget was only $725 million. The 2005 fiscal-year
budget was over $2 trillion, a 2000-percent increase from 1914.
Why the incredible difference? The income-tax revolutionized the
role of government from limited agent to safety-net builder. It
gave government the income-raising tool it needed to create our
devouring Welfare/Entitlement State. We could have a contractual
tax system if we reduced government to its size in 1914. A
contractual system would be easy then, because the budget would
be so small. Imagine that the annual federal budget is $750
million because we phased out regulations and entitlement
programs. To be more realistic, let's increase the budget to $75
billion (one hundred times the amount in 1914) to account for
inflation, defense costs, and the general increase in
population. The United States today has a population of about
250 million people. If we had a simple flat tax calculated by
dividing the total budget of $75 billion by the population of
250 million, the tax per person would be $300 a year. Do you
think you could afford $300 for taxes? This figure also excludes
money the federal government collects from other taxes, such as
excise, tariffs, and user fees, which were its primary taxes
before 1913. These extra taxes would further reduce the income
taxes needed and give government more funds to work with. Most
of us would be so happy about our low tax bill that we wouldn't
want to bother with a complicated contractual tax system. We
would be happy to pay the $300 and be done with it. Except for
this small tax, you could keep everything you earned. Add up all
the taxes you now pay and then subtract $300. Everything else
would be yours. But low taxes are possible only if we totally
reject the philosophy behind the Welfare/Entitlement State. We
pay heavy taxes only because we have thousands of regulations
and entitlement programs and millions of government bureaucrats.
The Welfare/Entitlement State and out-of-control government can
be swept away only when we reject the idea that helping others
is a moral and political duty instead of a personal choice.
Until then, the Welfare/Entitlement State forces us to help
others at the point of a legislative gun. Our paychecks and
savings accounts are no longer private property to be
scrupulously protected and used for our own benefit. Instead,
liberals assume that your salary, profits, and property are
collectively owned. They assume that your income is a national
resource they can give away to anyone who "needs" it. They
assume that the only person who has no right to your money is
you, the person who earned it. Are they right? Should you let
them get away with that? Does your hard-earned money belong to
you, or to any looting moocher who wants to steal it from you?
The next time you go into a voting booth, ask yourself these
questions. Every liberal, most Democrats, and too many
Republicans believe in the welfare-state philosophy. Vote only
for those who don't believe this.