Thursday, September 27, 2012

The Progressive 9


One hundred years ago in this country, and for the hundred years before that in Europe, the income tax was considered progressive.  It was new and evolving; it was tried and dropped and tried again until it became a permanent fixture in most of the “modern” countries.  The goal was to make the working and poorer classes feel like the well-to-do were paying their “fair share.”  And to this day we still hold on to that dream, even though after a hundred years in this country it still has yet to come true.  You know what they say when you keep trying the same thing and expect different results.  This country must move forward where tax reform is concerned.  If anything, it will be therapeutic – it will loosen insanity’s grip.

Have you ever gone through the process of training your hair to go in a direction it isn’t used to?  Takes a while, doesn’t it?  You brush your hair in the new direction, but the cells and molecules are used to being bent or stretched in the old direction and are set, so the hair gradually moves back.  Through repetition, the cells are eventually set in the new direction.  Our minds can be the same way, and I’ll prove it to you.  I’m going to tell you something about the income tax tonight that is true.  It is something that many of you will have difficulty believing because you most likely think the exact opposite is true.  My hope is that a lot of you reading this are relatively new to giving this topic much thought – I actually hope that many of your minds are made up in the opposite direction of the truth, because it is your minds that need to learn to switch directions.  And if your interest in this topic grows and you want to forward any of my posts to others to bring them along, I hope this is the first post you share.  Here goes:

Whether at the state or federal level, the income tax is not necessary.

Now, that is the truth, and if you believe the opposite, I'm sure you still believe the opposite.  But as I show you the truth from a couple of different angles, even as you start to believe the truth, your mind will still try to go back to what it’s used to.  Speaking from my own experience, even after you have become fully convinced of the truth, you will still catch your mind drifting back in that direction, and you have to remind yourself of what you know to be true.

Thoughts of roads and schools are filling your head.  You still don’t believe me.

So, you remember I mentioned the conversation I was having with one of my friends this past Sunday night?  I want to share now what she said really struck her as I was venting over my International House of Pancakes Belgian waffle.  It is something I mentioned several posts ago, but I will give it a little more attention now.

There are currently nine states in the Union that do not levy an income tax on their citizens.  In 2010, I sent letters to the governors of those nine states and enquired as to why that is.  Is there a specific principle that keeps them from doing so?  Is it not allowed, or is it just a matter of its being unpopular?  I received five very cordial responses – some of the governors responded in person, and some referred the matter to other departments.  Here are some highlights.

A letter from Governor Perry’s Constituent Communication Division in Texas said: “Governor Perry does not support a state income tax…The state’s revenue comes largely from sales and property taxes.”

A special assistant for Alaska’s Department of Revenue wrote: “Alaska did impose an individual income tax for many years…By 1979, however, revenue from oil and gas production, property, and corporate income tax was nearly five times greater than revenues from the individual income tax.”  The state repealed the individual income tax effective January 1, 1980.  “Its repeal was simply a case of economics.”

Governor M. Michael Rounds of South Dakota said: “I do not support a state income tax because we already have a balanced and fair system of taxation in South Dakota…Most state government activities are funded primarily by the state sales and use tax.  Most local government activities are funded primarily by local property taxes.  Also, because the federal government already taxes income, I do not believe we should tax incomes a second time in South Dakota...

“States with state income taxes also have much more difficult times during recessions.  For example, in the current recession, the two revenue sources we have that are based on income generation – investment returns and the bank franchise tax – have plummeted.  If our entire state tax system were based primarily on an income tax, many harmful cuts would have to have been made in services that help people in need.  Therefore, reliance on a state income tax would not be good for South Dakotans.”

And Wyoming’s director of the Department of Revenue shared this: “The Legislature simply never saw fit to impose a personal or corporate income tax.

“In 1974, by a vote of the people the Constitution was amended by Article 15, Sec. 18, and it read as follows:

‘No tax shall be imposed upon income without allowing full credit against such tax liability for all sales, use, and ad valorem taxes paid in the taxable year by the same taxpayer to any taxing authority in Wyoming.’

“The message sent by the electorate was pretty obvious.  We don’t want income taxes imposed in Wyoming!...So the answer to your question is simply that there has never been any popular support for an income tax.  Because Wyoming is a mineral rich state, the tax revenue lost by not having an income tax is made up for by imposing severance and ad valorem taxes on minerals, primarily coal and oil & gas.”

Now, the point is not that states without the income tax are Utopias.  None of the letters suggested such a thing, nor have I ever believed that abolishing the income tax will lead to that.  But also note that none of the letters said, “Our wood plank schoolhouses are crumbling.  Raw sewage runs down our unpaved streets.  We can’t afford police.  A library?  Never heard of that.  Our naked, homeless citizens sit in a vast field, waiting to die.  If only we had an income tax.”  None of the “Progressive 9” (as I’m calling them) lack the bells and whistles of civilization enjoyed by their neighbors.

Nine of our states are proving every day that taxing the income of their citizens is unnecessary.  And what I truly admire about the people of Wyoming is that they fully recognize the fact that, though they don’t pay an income tax, they are still taxpayers!

I hope it’s beginning to sink in.

I need to sink into my bed, so tomorrow I will address this same topic at the federal level, and I think you will be very intrigued.

8 comments:

  1. To be fair, shouldn't you have written to the other 41 states to ask why they DO find it necessary, or at least desirable, to have a state income tax?

    Moreover, if you are on a search for truth, as you claim, you should also concede the possibility that your position is wrong, and you should be open to the possibility of being persuaded otherwise by an impartial examination of factual evidence. If 41 states have found it desirable to impose an income tax (more, actually, since you revealed that even Alaska had income tax at one time), I imagine their legislatures had to be convinced by some pretty compelling arguments that an income tax was, if not a necessary, then at least a justified method of generating revenue. I can't imagine that 41+ separate state legislatures would have simply gone along with it without question; they had to be convinced to do it.

    After all, every state is different. Most of the states you cited seem to be sparsely populated, rural, Western states. Even the Alaska person revealed that they had an income tax at one time, but the state was able to raise plenty of money via revenue streams from energy production, and so could do without an individual income tax. Wyoming seemed to have a similar situation. But not every state has the same economic conditions; Rhode Island doesn't have the energy industry that Alaska has, so maybe there is a very good reason for them to have individual income taxes.

    My point is not to challenge your arguments per se, merely to comment on your rhetorical approach (I don't have a strong opinion either way). I think your argument will be that much stronger if you make a fair, balanced examination of all sides of the issue, then provide a reasoned argument why you think that arguments in favor of an income tax are wrong, and why you think that your position is best supported by reason and evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr. Sleestak, it troubles me when anyone ever questions what I have to say. Actually, I'm totally kidding and thank you for chiming in!

      I'm sort of glad in a way that you labeled my approach as "rhetorical," because it allows me to candidly admit that that is my general approach, though I hadn't really thought about it. There are things I have been researching very closely, and other things that I approach on more of an intuitive, common sense level - and I try to apply what I know of human nature after pondering a subject for some time. I don't have the most scientific approach, that is true. On the other hand, I believe that the subject at hand goes beyond numbers, just like the abolishing of slavery was an issue that went way beyond its subsequent impact on the economy.

      So, while I could have written to the other 41 states to ask why they impose an income tax, I couldn't help but think that the time it would have taken to do that wouldn't be worth 41 letters that read: "Money." That is, with few exceptions, the reason for any tax.

      I want to write more, but I must go pick up one of my boys, and much of what I would have said from here will end up in the post I plan to write next anyway.

      The main thrust of my aim right now is simply to help the average person recognize that the income tax is not the end-all for civilization, that there are other means of raising revenue. While it is true that any form of taxation ends up taking money from us, and no system is perfect, I believe that some METHODS should be clearly forbidden on the basis of basic human rights. Taxation without representation is one of those ways, and a tax on earned income is another. IMO.

      Thanks again!

      Delete
  2. Cool. BTW, I am using "rhetorical" in the broad sense of speech intended to persuade. I only facetiously suggested that you write to the governors of the other 41 states, but I don't think you can so easily brush off the justification for such a tax as "money." As you say, all taxation is after money, but what makes a personal income tax so abhorrent? 41+ state legislatures, our federal government and the governments of many other countries have come to the conclusion that income tax is an acceptable, legal, justifiable, and/or expedient method of taxation.

    So, if your intent right now is to demonstrate that an income tax is not strictly necessary for governments to raise revenues, I would say that point is clearly self-evident. I believe you will have a much bigger hurdle when you get to your larger point that an income tax is an outrageous and unjustifiable method of taxation. Not saying you can't make it, and I'll be interested to read your reasoning. But connecting the dots from here to there seems to be a pretty big leap, and I'm not so sure the examples you've cited in this post support that leap. Again, I don't have an axe to grind, I just wanted to give the perspective of an impartial, though interested reader.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Much appreciated! Glad to have your perspective shared here.

      Delete
    2. Quick question, Mr. Sleestak. You are very well-spoken and I don't think I've run across one typo or missing word in all that you've shared here. Are you a writer? If so, what do you write about?

      Delete
    3. Kurt, it's Scott Kelley. I am indeed a writer: a technical writer, and technical trainer in the banking industry. I got my start as an English/ESL teacher, and taught public speaking, rhetoric and academic composition in grad school.

      Delete
    4. OMG! Scott! How cool is that? So, okay, yeah! Wasn't trying to blow your cover or anything. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Scott Kelley. He works for the CIA. [kidding!]

      It's funny, I wasn't proofreading your responses and LOOKING for anything. It actually struck me that after reading responses that were more than two sentences long without having to mentally fill in any gaps or figure out what certain words were supposed to be - I was just cruising! And then I was like, "Hey, wait a minute..."

      You are a credit to your profession. :)

      Delete
  3. Noooo! It's Valerie Plame all over again! Funny thing is that I did three years in the Peace Corps in Eastern Europe in the mid-90s. My high school friends always joked about it being a cover for my CIA work...

    Thank you, sir! Thankfully my $40,000 college education wasn't wasted. Don't worry, I'll be holding your feet to the fire on your next blog posts! :-) As I said, not quite convinced yet, but I'm open to being educated on the topic.

    ReplyDelete